LETTER TO MR. MALCOLM F. BALDWIN FROM MICHAEL J. MALANICK

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 170
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 22, 2004
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: January 21, 1976
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
21 J4,;r 3@76
i-Ir. 'Malcolm F. Baldwin
Senior Staff Member for
NUPA Programs
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 23006
Dear Mr. Baldwin
The draft report on the Federal agency environmental
impact statement process forwarded by your memorandum of
12 December 1975 has been reviewed by the personnel of
this Office who have primary responsibility for technical
aspects of Agency environmental impact assessment. Ini-
tial revit,w of the draft report indicates that the recom-
mendations therein present no particular technical
Problems, particularly inasmuch as the Agency does not
have major impact statement responsibility.
As you are aware, this Agency does have certain
unusual operating procedures because of our internal secu-
rity practices. It is noted, however, that in Section
it is offered that, ';'CEQ will work with any
agency which believes that modifications of CIQ's guide-
lines . . . may be desirable for reasons of national
security* . .. . ." Per discussions between you and 1 :1
of my staff, it is understood that you would Pie
willing to consult with us with regard to our special prob-
lems. It is certainly the Agency's intent to comply with
the letter and spirit of national environmental policy and,.
with your assistance, it is believed that this can be
accomplished with only minor modification to existing Agency
environmental procedures and in a manner compatible with
national security considerations.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Mr. Malcolm P. Baldwin
Your cooperation in this patter Js greatly appreciated,
If :env adddd tional interi .: inforr-ztion is required, please
Sincerely,
Michael J. Malanick
Director of Logistics
Lt. Comdr. Jay Stevens
EPA Liaison, Office of
Federal Activities
Mr. Lindsey Grant, Director
Office of Zanvironv:^nntal
Affairs, Dept. of State
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78Mb2660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
TAB
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 - 4+Pi GM V Il .NO"1 I . t e% %. '. Ik.s a c
122 JACKSON PLACE. N. W.
Approved For Release 4F iT/b': bI1f-RI3 M02660R000800080019-3
December 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR FEDERAL AGENCY NEPA LIAISONS
As you know, the Council on Environmental Quality has
conducted a review of the federal agency environmental
impact statement process over the past year. The
attached draft report presents the major findings of
that review and makes a number of recommendations for
action by CEQ and other federal agencies in order to
improve the EIS process.
We intend to issue our final report to the President
and to make copies available for the public in February,
1976. Consequently, we would appreciate your careful
review of this draft report and the receipt of your
agency's comments by January 15, 1976. Please send
comments directly to:
Malcolm F. Baldwin
Senior Staff Member
for NEPA Programs
Council on Environmental Quality
722-Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
'C
Attachment ( s
William'Matuszeski
Acting Staff Director
z-o
(iL J 6250
Approved For Reld a 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3 '
FILE
 'The EIS Process of Federal Agencies.
yeft EWea MA3D :cQAIUWBMf1MMRGQD800LOWD 3
December 12, 1975
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
A. Purpose of CEQ NEPA Review
B. Procedures for Scope of the Review
C. summary of Ma or Recommendations
II. Organizing for NEPA
Page.
A. Agency Guidelines 10
B. Agency NEPA Offices 11
C. Agency Environmental Training Programs 13
Recommendations
III. Applying NEPA to Agency Operations
A. Defining Types of Proposed Actions 15
Subject to NEPA
1. ...Programs and individual actions
Recommendations
2. Assessments
Recommendations
3. Numbers of EISs
Recommendations
26
31
B. Use of NEPA and the EIS in Federal 32
Decisionmaking
Recommendations 39
a
C. Time.Requ.ired'to Complete Agency EIS 39
ApproRiL@c@1=3Re1@fPse 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Recommendations 53
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 CJA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Page
D. Joint and Lead Agency EISs 54
Recommendations 58
E. The EIS Comment and Response Process 58
Recommendations 66
F. NEPA-Related Cases 68
Recommendations 73
G. Special Problems in Applying NEPA 73
(1) Legislative EISs 73
Recommendations 76
(2) Permit Impact Statements 78
(a) Use of Applicant Information 79
(b)
Determining Reasonable 82
Alternatives
(c) Timing
Recommendations
(3) Grant Actions
Recommendations
(4) Water Resource Actions
Recommendations
(5) International Actions
90
Recommendations a \ 92f
Approved Fo Re ease'0411- ii( G5 'f -RDP78M02660R0008000800'19-3
H. ,Quality and Content of the EIS
(2) Tevel of Analysis
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080$1
1.
Effect of NPA on State Governments
103
Recommendations
108
J.
Public Involvement
109
Recommendations
112
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R0b0800080019-3
 Approved For Release id04/1'173 o6X-$h'S MO266OR000800080019-3
A. Purpose of CEQ NEPA Review
Over the past year the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) has conducted a major review of federal
agency implementation of the environmental. impact state-
went (EIS) requirement of the National Erz ironmental Policy
1
.Act (NEPA). This review stemmed from CEQ's obligations
under 5204(3) of NEPA_ and CEQ s mandaite %;n_ er Executive
Order 11514.___ _ts purpose was to investigate
the experiences of the agencies in seeking to me-et_t%Ze_
goals of NEPA under existing CEQ EIS guidelines,- to assess-
trends in agency implementation of EIS requirements and to
provide the President, the agencies, the. Congress and the
public with the, Council's findings and recommendations on the
EIS process. In particular the review focused on the use of
this process in Government decisionmaking: policy and program
EIS's; EIS content and quality;. the EIS review and commenting
process and public... involvement in the process,---._.____ _.-
42' U.S.C. 54321 et seq., 83 Stat. 85~, P.L. 91--190.
* Section 204(3) of (NEPA) requires CEQ to "review and
f the
i
es o
appraise the various programs and activit
Federal Government in-the light of the policy set forth
in Title I of this Act for the purpose of determining
the extent to which such programs and activities are
contributing to the achievement of such policy, and to.
make recommendations to the President with respect thereto.
P-ro-t ction and Enahricement of Envirorc rental Qua lity, Exec.
Order;,.No. 11514, 35 Fed Reg. 4247, ELR, 45003 (March 5, 1970).
**** Council on Environmental Quality, Guidelines for Statements
on Proposed Actions Affecting the Environment, 36 Fed. Reg.
2df_qCpv%F leIse JQJ*/31)1/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
B. Procedures for Scope of the Review
CEQ began its review in Novem)er 1974, by sending a
questionnaire on. IS; implementation to all federal
agencies. Based on the responses -received, _CEQ sta_f
held meetings with federal agencies having major impact statement
responsibilities. In addition, CEQ, in cooperation with the
National Governors Conference, submitted -a questionnaire-
to all state officials to determine their experiences with
the federal NEPA process.. Some 27 states-:responded.
Supplementing these sources of information were CEQ's
evaluations of agencies' responses to a questionnaire
on NEPA litigation and the results- of_._CEQ' s continual
monitoring of judicial decisions, legislative initiatives,
and federal agency practices, guidelines and environmental
impact statements.
The vast amount of information that CEQ received from
the agencies and the states has necessarily been distilled
in preparing this report. ____The report'is not intended,
as a comprehensive review of each federal agency-
implementation of NEPA generally. Consequently, issues-arising
_* See Appendix A.
See--Appendix B.
See Appendix C.
*** The agency and state responses to CEQ's questionnaires
are mailable for public review in CEQ offices.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 3
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
out of section 101 of NEPA, which sets forth a number of
environmental goals for the federal government, and other
parts of section 102(2) (A) (B) and (E) are not discussed.
This report focuses instead on the EIS requirement of
NEPA in section 102(2)(C) and on the experiences of those
federal agencies with the most extensive EIS obligations.
The recommendations made, however, are intended to address
subjects relevant to all federal agencies. These recommenda-
tions follow each section of the report. Major recommenda-
tions are summarized below.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78M02660 6800080019-3
C. Summary of Major Recommendations
0 The most necessary reform of the impact statement process
is to make it more useful to agency planning and decision-
making. This need, which federal and state agencies and
environmental business and labor organizations have
frequently expressed to the Council, is the subject of a
number of many specific recommendations made throughout
this report. For while experience over the past 6
years shows that environmental assessments and impact
statements have significantly improved government decisions,
the impact statement process has not consistently served
the needs of decisionmakers. Consequently agencies should
make major efforts to see that the EIS process focuses on
the issues of concern to agencies and to members of the
public. EISs should be more manageable in size and
.analytical in content. The most important part of the
EIS should be its analysis of the impacts of the proposed
action and the.impacts.cf_r"easonable alternatives. Efforts
to improve EIS content should include measures
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RD078M02660R000800080019-3
 5
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
to reduce and reference descriptive material that is
not necessary to an understanding, of the significant
impacts and issues or of the choices available.
it_continues t
be essential that more agency leaders,
as well as other agency operating personnel, understand
the potential of the EIS process as a management tool.
Toward this end each agency having major EIS responsibilities
should support high level, well-staffed offices charged
with implementing NEPA, and the EIS process effectively
and efficiently. Agency educational programs on NEPA --
its goals and its procedures -- are also necessary for agency
leaders who should benefit from the Act and the EIS process.
? More effective guidance is necessary from CEQ and the
federal agencies on ways to use the EIS process to help
develop and evaluate the environmental effects of agency
programs and policies. While agencies have taken important
steps to group actions together in program statements on
subregional, regional and national bases, conceptual and
practical guidance is essential if the EIS process is to
address more than project actions effectively.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 6
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Improvements are needed in the procedures used by
agencies to notify other federal, state and local
agencies, and members of the public,of important EIS
actions. All agencies should prepare regular and timely
notices of intent to prepare EISs and lists of negative
declarations. Such information should be published in
the Federal Register and circulated to the states through
their A-95 clearinghouses. The documents themselves
should be available to the public.
? To improve the EIS commenting and response process,
agencies should establish, in consultation with CEQ,
clearer definitions of their commenting expertise and
jurisdiction, and the priorities used in making EIS
comments. In addition, federal agencies should evaluate
their responses to comment9 received from states and
members of the public on draft EISs in order to
insure that adequate responses are prepared in final
EISs. Other recommendations on these matters are
contained in the report.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 7
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Although the EIS process has contributed significantly to
improved government coordination of planning and decision-
making through lead and joint agency EISs, more interagency
agreements are needed on several subjects to anticipate
analytical needs and to avoid unnecessary duplication in
complying with NEPA. Other measures to improve govern-
ment coordination through the EIS process are recommended
in the report.
Continued efforts are needed to improve the quality
and content of EISs, so that they meet the information
needs of decisionmakers and the general public. CEQ
and the federal agencies must make new efforts to
help define the "human" environment under NEPA, and the
appropriate scope of analysis and level of detail necessary
for certain types of impact statements.
? While the evidence available to the Council indicates
that the problem of delays caused by inefficiencies
in the EIS process is not serious or significant,
agencies should continue efforts to integrate
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CPA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
the EIS requirements into their decisionmaking process.
EIS preparation should not be at the tail-end of this
process but should be, as in most cases it has been,
a part of the technical, economic and other analyses
that agencies must make.
? There are a number of special issues arising out of
the EIS process which require attention and remedy by
CEQ and the agencies. Among these are measures to adapt
the EIS process to legislative proposals in ways that
are useful to Congress and to agency decisionmakers.
Another is the need to improve procedures and guidance
for impact statements on federal permit actions which
present difficult problems of timing, intergovernmental
coordintion-and scope. A third need is to apply the EIS
process more effectively to si,.gnificant international
_activities of federal agencies. These and other specific
aspects of the federal EIS process are the subject of a number
of recommendations found toward the end of this report.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
The effectiveness of procedures adopted by Federal
agencies to promote public participation in the EIS
process needs more thorough study and evaluation. This
subject will be addressed by the Council in public meetings
on NEPA to be held in early 1976.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR060800080019-3
 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Approved For Releesie 20( ,' la ~Rlfi fTaPNI R000800080019-3
A. Agency Guidelines
Following the passage of NEPA and promulgation of
Executive Order 11514, CEQ issued interim guidelines for
preparation of environmental impact statements. These
guidelines,. made final in 1971, were later revised-and
were promulgated in August 1973. The guidelines establish
a basic structure for the operation of the EIS process.
However, because federal programs vary so substantially,
CEQ guidelines recognized that each agency was also
directed under Executive order 11514 to develop more
specific procedures to tailor the EIS process to the
particular activities it undertakes..
The major' exception to formal compliance with CEQ's
1973 guidelines is the Department of the interior, whose
NEPA procedures were promulgated in September 1971. in
addition, agencies with significant environmental effects such
as the U.S. Postal Service and the Export-Import Bank have
not established EIS procedures. In large part, however,
the procedural requirements of NEPA and CEQ's guidelines have
been well-established. In the Interior Department,
for example, CEQ guidelines have inmost respects been
followed either explicitly by bureau procedures, or
implicApproved'FOr_Foel asEM& } -fi3U: CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Below is a., list of agency NEPA guidelines and their
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
A enc
Department of Agriculture
AGENCY NEPA PROCEDURES, as of -November 19_75
Current procedures
Amendments
'Citation J Date Citation
Departmental
May 29, 1974
Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service
May 29, 1974
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
January 29, 19
742t
39 F.R. 3696?
Farmers Home Administration
August 29, 197
2 37 P.R. 17459
Forest Service
May 3, 1973
38 F.R. 20919
Oct. 30; 1975 39 F.R. 38244
Rural Electrification Administration
May 20, 1974
39 F.R. 23240
Soil Conservation Service
June 3. 1974
7 C.F.R. Part 650
39 F.R. 19646
`ppalachian Regional Commission
36 F.R. 23676
atomic Energy Commission
Regulatory
July 18, 1974
10 C.F.R. Part 51
39 F.R. 26279
February 14, 1
974 10 C.F.R. Part 11
39 F.R. 5620
anal Zone Government
October- 20, 1
972 37 F.R. 22669
entral Intelligence Agency
39 F.R. 3579
3vil Aeronautics Board
14 C.P.R. 1399.110
Aug. 25, 1975 40 F.R. 37181
36 F.R. 12513
October 230 19
71 36 F.R. 21368
Feb. 4, 1975 40 F.R. 5115
NOAH, CZM
Anonat 21, 197
4 39 F.R. 30153
EDA
kiovember 13, 1.
,
974 34 F.R. 4012"
department of Defense
April 26, 1974
32 C.F.R. Part 214
39 F.R. 14699
F
R
92
4
:orps of Engineers
.
.
33 C.
09.
10
39 F.R. 12737
elavare River Basin Commisalon Approved FrarrReIea%
2004/1 U, r.CJA D 8M02660R000800080019-3
19 P.R. x.73
Proposed revisions (if any)
Date Citationl/
 Approved For Releacset200?k' a 3Q-e CIA-RDP78M 02660R000800080019-3 Proposed revisions (if any)
envy
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Power Commission
Federal Trade Commission
General Service Administration
Departmental
Federal Supply Service
Transportation and Communications Service
Property Management and Disposal Service
Public Buildings Service
Department of Health. Education and Welfare
Departmental
Amendments
Date Citation
January 17, 1913 40 C.F.R. Part 6 Apr. 14, 1975 430 F.R. 16813
38 F.R. 1696
July 24, 1972 37 F.R. 15711 Oct. 21, 1974 39 F.R. 37419
Nov. 18, 1;74 :evlaion of Manual on
Review of Federal
Actions Impacting the
Environment.
December 1.8, 1912 Commission Order No. 415-C
37 F.R. 26412
November 19, 1971 16 C.F.R. $1.81-1.85'
36 F.R. 22814
April. 4, 1975 40 F.R. 15131
December 11, 1971 FSS 1095.1A
36 F.R. 23702
Jame 30, 1911 TCS 1095.1
December 30, 1971 PMD Order 1095.1A
36 F.R. 23704
October 17, 1973
Citation
HEW General Administration Manual
Chapters 30-10 through 30-16
Food and Drug Administration March 15, 1973 21 C.F.R. Parts 6.601
.Department of Housing and Urban :Development
Department of the Interior
.hu.ly 1.8, 1973
Departmental September 21, 1971 36 F.R. 19343
Bonneville Power Administration January 19, 1972 37 F.R. 815
Bureau of Indian Affairs September 17, 1910 Departmental Manual Release
Bureau of Land Management July 31, 197t, Departmental Manual Release
Bureau of Mines February-'9, 1972 37 F.R. 2695
Bureau of outdoor Recreation March 24. 1972 37 F.R. 6501
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Bureau of Reclamation 18 ~nr, 34 r.s. 3.116
40 F.R. 27733
39 F.R. 13741't
February 22. 1974 39 F.R. 6815
4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Current procedures
Agency
.S. Fish and Wildlife
tological Survey
rational Park Service
erstate Commerce Commission
Date
December 1971
Citation
37 F.R. 207
artment of Justice
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration)
artment of Labor
ional Aeronautics and Space Administration
tonal Capital Planning Commission
ional Science Foundation
11 Business Administration
artment of State
iepartmental
nternational Boundary and Water Commission
inesaee Valley Authority
;artment of Transportation
)epartmental
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Jnited States Coast Guard
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
March 11, 1972
July 29, 1974
March 28, 1972
February 6, 1974
Rath 15, 1974
April 10, 1974
August 1972
October 20, 1.912
August 31, 1972
March 1.4, 1974
February 14, 1974
November 1, 1973
Jame 19, 1973
September 1. 1972
December 11, 1973
February 1,-1912
November 1.0, 1915
Amendment
ate tat on
37 F.R. 5263
National Park Service Manuel
49 C.F.R. 91100.250
31 F.R. 6318
28 C.F.R. Part 19
39 F.R. 4736
29 C.F.A. Part 1999
39 F.R. 9959
14 C.F.A. 11204.11
39 F.A. 12999
37 F.A. 16039
45 C.F.R. Fart 640
39 F.R. 3544
31 F.R. 22697
31 F.R. 19167
39 P.R. 9868
39 F.A. 5611
38 F.A. 30215 Sept. 30, 1974 39 F.R. 35232
PPM 90-1
31 F.A. 21803
DOT Order 5610.1
31 F.R. 22692
40 F.R. 52395
49 C.F.A. 520
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation e r 1971 Procedure SLS 2-5610.1A
(amended pproved"Wor elease 2004/11/30: CIA-RDRp7,8M!Q?[e-mail] 6_.T_..
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Current procedures
AMsddma! tt
Date
Citation.
ate
Citation
AMY
April 260 1974
39 F.R. 14796
Departwent of the Treasury
August 120 1971
36 F.R. 15061
internal Revenue Service
June 17, 1974
39 F.R4 21016
Aug. 25, 1915
40 F.R. 37126
Veterans Administration
February 100 1971
36 F.R. 23711
Hater Resources Council
Proposed revisions (if and
Citation
1/ Citations are given to an agency's procedures where they have been published in the Federal Register or otherwise
2/ These procedures, while issued in proposed fora, are currently being followed on a interim basis.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : Cl.4-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
B. Agency NEPA Offices
To oversee their NEPA policies. and procedures, most
federal agencies have established special high level offices
or positions responsible for overseeing and helping implement
the agency's duties under NEPA. Duties of these offices
have usually included: the development of agency procedures
to implement NEPA, the development of more detailed substan-
tive guides for agency EIS preparation and review; the
organizing and conduct of training programs for agency
personnel preparing EISs; the preparation or organization
of particularly important EISs; the coordination of internal
review and clearance of their own EISs prior to formal
release and circulation as draft or finals; and lastly,
the coordination of their internal process for commenting
on other agencies' EISs.
Agency NEPA offices have proved critical to successful
implementation of NEPA although their best achievements
are often unnoticed. In the past several years particularly,
they have
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP7.8MO266OR000800080019-3
coordinated interagency work on mutual environmental___
issues and EISs;
-- been an important contact and source of information on
NEPA issues for state and local agencies and members
of the public;
helped agency leaders use the NEPA process as a management
tool by bringing complex and controversial issues
to the appropriate decisionrnaking level for resolution;
and
-- worked successfully with agency subunits to avoid EIS
procedural problems or substantive defects that might
result in poor decisions or needless delays and litigation.
In large departments, such as interior, DOT, DOD, HEW,
HUD and Agriculture, the leadership and coordinating role of the
NEPA office can be and has been especially significant.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 13
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
In most agencies with major NEPA responsibilities
NEPA officials are directly responsible to agency heads,
deputies or assistant secretaries. However, where NEPA
offices are more remote from agency leaders their impact' -
and efficiency has been impaired.
C. Agency Environmental Training Programs
The proper training and use of environmental expertise
is,essential to the successful use of NEPA by federal agencies
in their planning and decision making. Departments such as
Interior, Agriculture, DOT and DOD have stated that such
training programs have been extremely important and useful
to those charged with preparing an EIS. It is unclear, however,
whether the programs that exist have adequately filled the need fo
agency leaders'to understand the value and use of the EIS
process in agency planning and decisionmaking.
Recommendations
Successful implementation of NEPA requires sustained
support of high-level NEPA offices, fully staffed to help
agency leaders use the NEPA process as an effective management
S. .
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
tool. Each agency should periodically evaluate how its
NEPA office functions and can be strengthened for EIS
preparation and comment duties.
Particular agency attention should be directed-to--ways
to improve their NEPA training programs not only for those
preparing and reviewing assessments and EISs but for
those in leadership positions who should use the EIS
process to improve agency plans and decision. Consistent
with other recommendations of this report,-agencies should
consider the need for special training programs and materials
on the EIS process emphasizing the ways iri which--it can
herpp agency decisionmakers.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
.r '
 Approvelyor Rft Rf 1N DACCA RRgency 6operaation8s0019-3
A. Defining Types of Proposed Actions Subject to YEPA
1. Programs and individual actions
Basically, federal agencies have applied the
EIS process to two types of actions -- individual actions
and programs. Individual actions have accounted for by
far the largest number of EISs prepared to date. Examples are
EISs on right-of-way permits through public lands,. leasing-------
of specific coal or OCS tracts, nuclear power plant licensing
actions or proposals to fund a particular highway or housing
project. However, there has been a growing realization
that many federal actions can and should be grouped together
for more useful and systematic analyses in program
statements. Such groupings are possible on the
basis of certain common characteristics, such as actions
which occur in and affect a clearly delineated geographic
area that is meaningful to agency decisionmaking, or actions
repetitive in nature. Less commonly, -groupings of actions-
have been made on the basis of actions which produce a similar
output or product or which would cause a similar result, such
as areas protected from flooding or air or water standards
raised to a certain level.
' 4 -
Approved For. Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 16
n%
,i ! gotRefbaim=4CidMl D $JV3 QRTQ%80W tuning
when to prepare individual action EISs still have had
difficulty defining the kinds of programs for which EISs
are appropriate and useful. CEQ's guidelines on program
statements have not been greatly helpful since they are--extremely
broad. Of 19 agencies and departments with major NEPA
responsibilities, only 6 have sought to develop program
guidance of their own. Nevertheless 13 of these 19 agencies
have used or plan to use the program EIS concept. (See
Table 1 below.)
Guidelines on
Program EISs
Program EISs
Dept of Ag.
yes
yes..
F.S.
yes
yes
SCS
no
yes
DOD
yes
yes
Corps
yes
yes
EPA
no
no
ERDA (AEC)
yes
yes
GSA
no
no
Dept. of Int.
yes
yes
BIA
no
yes
BLM
no
yes
BuRec
no
yes
F&WS
yes
yes
NPS
yes
yes
US GS
no
yes
DOT
no
no
FAA
no
no
FHWA
no
no
NRC
no
yes
Approved For, Release. 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 17
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
The definition of individual or program actions appro-
priate for analysis through the EIS process differs
considerably among the agencies. Thus the National Park
Service and the Forest Service determined that their planning
proposals for national parks or for units of a national .
forest should be subjected to the EIS process. E*Ss on
these actions are considered to be small program EISs. The
Bureau of Land Management, however, has determined that EISs
are not appropriate for its own land management framework
plans. BLM, however, prepares program-statements on the basis
of generic groupings -- on a coal leasing program or grazing
management, or oil and gas leasing.) Again, TVA and the
Forest Service have defined their pesticide activities in
terms of various large programs subject to the EIS process.
The Defense Department, however, does not take this approach
with its pesticide actions and sees these as discrete,'
indiv!d ual actions.
These differences in defining proposed actions subject
to the EIS process may often reflect the variety of decisionmaking
processes within the Federal Government. However, there are
a number of critical areas, such as land management or
pesticide program actions where EISs have not been adequately used
to address impacts and alternatives. Another situation where the
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 18
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
EIS process has not been usefully applied is illustrated when
a region or a community may incur significant environmental
effects as a result of diverse projects or programs of several
agencies. Thus a dam proposal of the Corps of Engineers
may affect a land management plan of BLM, the Forest Service
or the National Park Service or a highway proposal may interact
with a waste water treatment proposal to affect the environment
of a community. in these cases several federal actions may
cause significant effects that may require joint or lead agency
EISs. ~_.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/1113 P78M02660R000800080019-3
Recommendations
More agencies use the program statement mechanism than
have program EIS guidance, and CEQ'sdelines donot fill-
their needs. Consequently, more explicit direction from CEQ
should be provided to help agencies determine _(1)_, whether
and how actions can be classified and grouped together as
programs on the basis of geographical, generic or other
common factors and, (2), how,_program statements
on groups of actions with significant impacts can be
usefully timed and organized to tie-in with subsequent
statements on related individual actions.
Since one of the purposes. of NEPA was to anticipate overall
impacts of federal programs and to coordinate the necessary
environmental analyses, agencies should recognize the need for
impact statements on inter-related actions the impacts of
which might not be covered by EISs on individual actions or
by better use of program statements. Federal agencies should be
particularly receptive to local and state government and other
public concerns about the cumulative impacts of different
federal actions. CEQ will work closely with federal agencies
to identify such situations and will, as necessary, designate
lead or joint agencies to prepare any EISs required.
* * *
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 20
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 :RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
2. Assessments
Whether agencies group actions together for EIS
purposes or handle them separately, they must determine
whether the proposed program or individual action meets the
test for an EIS under section 102(2)(C). Section 1500.6 of
CEQ's guidelines specifies that federal agencies should
develop specific criteria and methods for identifying the
kinds of actions likely or not likely to require an EIS.
Even with this classification, however, individual appraisals
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
21
of proposed actions have been essential.
Most federal agencies have found it impractical and
misleading to question whether a proposed action or program
is "m aior "under NEPA. Instead, they have focused on whether
a proposed action will have a significant impact on the "quality
of the human environment." If so, an EIS is required.
The mechansim through which this appraisal is made
is the preparation of an environmental assessment. Table 2
lists the numbers of assessments made by federal agencies
with major NEPA responsibilities.
The assessment procedure has become a critical part of
the EIS process under Section 102(2)(C). it has served to
determine which proposed pm jects should be the subject of
an EIS. it has also assisted even where the project was
determined not to require an imp act statement, by describing
ways to mitigate environmental harm, pursuant to section 101 of
NEPA and sections 102(2)(A), (B) and (E),-.-and by establishing
an-administrative -record-that -protects agencies if
they are challenged in court to show.why-- no_J_LS- was__prepared. in
short, assessment procedures have become basic to an agency's
implementation of NEPA as a whole. a Recognizing this, the.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/331A-RRP78M02660R000800080019-3
Number of Environmental Assessments Prepared by Agency in
Fiscal Year 1975
FS - EA's are prepared in the Ranger
districts for every action affecting forest
resources.
SCS- An environmental assessment is
prepared for all watershed projects.
DOD - Estimate of one for every project.._ Several thousand. __-
COE - Estimated 10,000.
EPA - NA.
ERDA - NA
GSA - NA
DOI - NA
BIA - NA.
BLM - 9,433-Agency prepares EA's on all projects.
BOR - Approximately 2,500. Agency prepares EA's for all
grants projects.
BuRec - 136.
F&WS - Approximately 60-65.
NPS - Estimated 150.
USGS - NA
DOT - NA
FAA - 5,500 - Assumption of one for every project budgeted.
FHWA - Approximately 2,500. Agency prepared 250 EISs in
Approved fiy F lease ~0~4~ 1'~PC~A PI NW6 80 -3their
a pro~ec s. FHWA prepares PA s on a projects.
 23
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
use of assessments as part of agency decisio remaking processes
has been increasing. Agencies have reported that, in a --
number of cases, an assessment of a proposal has revealed
significant environmental problems, which has in
turn caused the agency not to proceed with, or to modify
substantially, the proposed action.
Nonetheless, the assessment procedures required by
the.agencies have not always been consistently followed.
A report by the GAO on HUD assessment procedures noted that
from NEPA's passage to June 30, 1974, some 30,000 project
proposals went through HUD that, by HUD's own regulations,
required some form of environmental assessment or clearance.
GAO examined 253 of these projects in several HTTD offices and
found that clearances were actually prepared for only 36% of the
1
total number of projects. Lack of trained staff and
secretarial commitment to the environmental review process
were blamed by GAO for HUD's inabilities to prepare enough
assessments. During the 4 1/2 year period covered by the
GAO report, HUD prepared 81 EISs. Other agencies, while
not requiring the rigorous clearance procedures in HUD's
regulations and not having HUD's huge numbers of project
actions, nonetheless suffer similar problems. However,
Government Accounting Office, Environmental Assessment
Efforts for Proposal Projects Have Been Ineffective,
D 1-~ F&r F e t2Od4Ig1/am~dC D x7 noes op8c 22, 1975,
p. 9.
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
none of them has been rigorously analyzed by GAO or by-
CEQ on this particular issue.
There'-is no specified format for federal agency assess-
ments or established minimum analytical standards.- Each
agency has developed its own procedures. Consequently, some
agencies use assessments to examine alternatives while others
only examine the environmental impacts of the proposal.
some cases, the process of preparing a negative
declaration has been confused with the assessment procedure.
A negative declaration is a brief summary of the results
of an environmental assessments in the situation where no
EIS will be prepared. it is one of the two possible outcomes
of._the assessment process. The other is the preparation of
a notice of intent, setting forth the agency's decision to
prepare an EIS.7
The negative declarations
and notices-of intent that
agencies prepare are frequently not readily available to the
public. CEQ guidelines require_agencies--to prepare lists of impact
statements in preparation and to make these lists __available to
the public. Agencies are also required to prepare lists
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 25
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
of negative declarations not for all cases where EISs are
not required but on projects that might normally require
an impact statement but which agencies determine should
not be required in that particular case. The Forest
Service is one of the few agencies that consistantly
prepares and publishes lists of impact statements under
preparation. Lists of negative declarations are only
occasionally prepared by agencies and submitted to CEQ.
o
I L_ wever, proposed NEPA procedures of FEA would require their
publication of lists of negative declarations in the Federal
Register, would invite comments on them and would-make them and
the related assessments available on request.
.1
Section 1500.6(e). "If an. agency decides that an environmentz
statement is riot necessary for a proposed action (i) which
the agency has identified pursuant to _?1500.6 (c) (4) (ii) as
normally requiring -preDaration of a statement, - (ii) which-is.-
similar to actions. for which the agency has prepared a
significant number of statements, (iii) which the agency
has previously announced would be the-subject of a statement,
or (iv) for which the agency has made a negative determinatiol
in response to a request from the Council pursuant to ?1500.1'
the agency shall prepare a publicly available record briefly
setting forth the agency's decision and the reasons for the
determination..w.
* e Department' of the Interior does not prepare public lists
of-
. e declarations and notices of--intent to prepare
an EIS because it does not accept CEQ's guidelines as binding,
'Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR060800080019-3
 2 6- f
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Recommendations
CEQ guidance is needed to make clear that: (1) environ-
mental assessments of varying degrees are necessary to determine
whether a particular EIS is required; (2) even if an EIS is
not required, the assessment should be used to help mitigate
environmental harm as required by sections of NEPA other than
102(2)(c),-_(3) negative declarations are short statements,
based on the assessment, that. describe why no EIS is necessary;
(4) to provide the--federal`--state -and local-agencies and
the public with early warning of EIS actions, all agencies
should publish monthly lists in the Federal Register
of negative declarations prepared for those categories
of projects set forth in section 1500.6(e) of the CEQ guidelines;
notices of intent to prepare an EIS should be published in
the Federal Register each quarter. Agencies should make
copies of the environmental assessments associated with negative
declarations available_t4_the_public___on request.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 27
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
3. Numbers of EISs
The number of draft statements filed with the
CEQ reached its peak in 1971 and has been considerably
lower each year since. This situation resulted-'- -
primarily because NEPA lacked a "grandfather clause",
and impact statements were required for projects that
were underway prior to NEPA and for projects that
had been approved but were not yet begun. The
I
agency most affected by this_.backlog problem was DOT.
In 1971, DOT made a massive effort to comply with
NEPA by filing 1,293 draft environmental impact
statements. By 1972. it began to catch up. The
trend continues as the pre-NEPA projects of DOT go
through the NEPA process and as small highway segments
.-are-consolidated into fewer impact statements. Today
criteria.
only 10 percent of all highway projects requires an
EIS under the Department of Transportation's NEPA
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Based on agency responses to CEQ's NEPA questionnaire
the council expects a slight increase in the number of
environmental impact statements over the next two years.
Mitigating against an increase in number of EISs is the
reduction in the pre-NEPA backlog problem. However, this
reduction is in part countered by the increase caused by
NEPA's application to relatively new agencies like FEA, the
Consumer Products Safety Commission and the Occupational
Health and Safety Administration, and also because of
the increasing application of NEPA within the older
Departments such as interior and Agriculture, for example.
But the main reason for the increase is the Corps of
Engineers' plan to write some 600 draft EISs on its
operation a nd'maintenance programs for completed projects.
The Corps expects to cut its number nearly in half in
fiscal year 1977 as O&M projects are consolidated into
program EISa.
The past record and expected trend in EISs is given
by agency in Table 3 and by type of project in Table 4.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : C2AkRDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Draft Environmental Impact Statements Filed,
by Agency, 1970-74 and Estimated 1975
Agency,
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
19at75ed JJune 30,
1975
OOT
61
1,293
674
432
360
205
108
CO E
119
316
211
243
303
332
147
USOA
62
79
124
166
179
259
110
001
18
65
107
119
109
117
38
AEC
32
22
65
28
36
-
-
EROA
-
--
-
-
-
10
4
N RC
-
-
-
-
-
23
11
HUD
3
23
26
22
21
52
37
000
5
27
24
19
21
44
14,
GSA
3
34
6
24
26
34
117
EPA
0
16
13
26
14
40
13
At1Others
16
75
135
66
68
64
39
Total
319
1,950
1.385
1,145
1.137
2.180
530
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 30
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Draft Environmental Impact Statements Filed,
by Type, 1970-74 and Estimated 1975
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
mated
,June 0,
Watershed, flood
control, naviga-
tion
97
392
210
263
273
411
195
Parks. wildlife.
refuges, forests
2
24
84
111
134
143
49
Roads
41
1.123
543
305
280
155
93
;Timber manage-
ment
5
1
26
58
24
67
11
Energy
36
59
128
74
114
92
48
Airports
15
141
119
96
66
30
7
Pesticides, herbi-
cides
2
L6
26
15
14
7
5
AU others
121
194
249
223
227
275
122
Total'
319
1,950
1,385
1.145
1,137
1,180
530
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 31
Approved For Release 2004/11/3 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
* * .*
Recommendations
Agencies should continue their efforts to group
projects and programs together into consolidated impact
statements wherever agency planning and decisionmaking
processes permit.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
B. Use of the EIS Process in-Federal Decisionmaking._.
The Council sought a variety of information from the
agencies, the states and other sources to minimize the inherent
difficulty in estimating the effects of the EIS process on
decisionmaking. Necessarily, most of the "hard" data
are related to the "action-forcing",EIS process of NEPA
and the various documents falling out from it -- environ-
mental assessments, negative EIS determinations, and draft
and final EISs.
In reviewing these data, however, the Council was
mindful of the fact that the EIS is not. an end in itself
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : GIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
and ;that compliance with NE PA requires much more than a
document or response to tht;_procedures of section 102(2)(c).
In fact, it was virtually impossible to measure accurately
and indisputably the effect of NEPA on agency decisions
since the decisionmaking process is, in any agency,
inherently difficult to track. Moreover, each agency
has different administrative procedures. Consequently,
it was not always possible to determine precisely when,
why and by whom a decision was made -- whether, for
example, an important environmental decision was made
by middle level officials on the basis of a preliminary
environmental assessment or whether a certain decision
might still have been made even in the absence of NEPA.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 34
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
CEQ asked federal agencies to identify the kinds of
documents they used to present environmental analyses to
decisionmakers and to describe the influence-of EISs on
the decisionmaking process (see Appendix A, questions
2.01 and 2.02). Agencies found it difficult to answer
the first question in meaningful terms because there may
be any number of "decisionmakers" along the line, because
many important decisions were made on the basis of assess-
ments and because any EISs prepared did, in fact, "accompany"
the proposals through agency decisionmaking process whether
or not they were actually used. More revealing, but hardly
quantitative, were the examples provided by the agencies
of EIS effects. Those that CEQ believes are most noteworthy
are summarized and attached to this report. Recent
examples of the use of EISs include agency decisions to halt
construction of 1-66 into Washington, D.C., to reexamine nuclear
waste disposal in surface storage facilities and to develop
a long-range forest and range program. The examples
illustrate not only the effect of the EIS process
but the substantial differences among the agencies as to
when in the process these effects"'occur, ranging from effects of
pre-EIS documents to the final EIS itself.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
~~ See Appendix D
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
With rare exception the federal agencies with major
EIS responsibilities reported to CEQ that the EIS process
has been an important aid to planning and decisionmaking.
Several significant problems are apparent, however, that
need more attention. One is the need to improvethe
analytical-quality_.of EISs and the focus of such analysis
on the needs-of planners and decisionmakers. This topic
is addressed below in section III 'of the report. Another vita`
need, discusse-below is for agency leadership to
understand and appreciate the value of the EIS process to
the development of sound federal programs and projects.
In many instances NEPA has been better understood and
regarded at the middle and lower levels of an agency than
at the top. This fact was noted by a task force reviewing
the Interior Department's EIS processes in April 1974, which
reported candidly that:
There is overwhelming support by nearly
all bureaus for NEPA and most people
interviewed by the Task Force feel that
the benefits of applying NEPA far outweigh
any delays or other impacts on their
programs. There was also a feeling by
many of the employees interviewed that
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
if there were more visable signs of a positive
commitment to NEPA by top management, more
positive support would be provided by bureau
directors, assistant directors, division chiefs
and regional directors.
The problem o-f_leadership_understandinq and use-othe
-.=S process is not unique to any one agency or department.
.In the Interior Department, given its critical environmental
.mission, the commitment of Bureau and Departmental leaders
to the use of the EIS as a management tool is particularly
important. Many reasons and opportunities exist for improving
this use.
in DOD generally the EIS process has received little
Departmental emphasis as:a-policy tool to evaluate and
improve wide ranging environmental programs and goals of its
various components. Although EIS preparation has contributed
to better decisions, DOD has frequently been criticized by
local and state agencies and citizen groups for circulating
Task Force Report of the Department of the Interior,
A Review of Environmental Impact Statement Processes
within the Department of the Interior, April 1974.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
draft EISs after decisions have already been made on such
matters as DOD bases, or other
facilities. (DOD does not circulate any preliminary drafts
to state, local or public groups.)
Several agencies have, however, made new efforts to
integrate NEPA into their operations. Recently, the
Director of the National Park Service within the Department
issued a directive on NEPA to all park superintendents.
The directive stressed the Service's strong policy support
for the process and its importance to sound decisionmaking.
In August 1975 the Director of the Agency for
International Development issued, a policy statement to
make more effective use of the environmental assessment
and statement mechanism for its projects abroad. AID
is currently working on new procedures to implement this
policy. The Council believes this effort can be a most
constructive step toward integrating NEPA in AID's
international program. It is also an important example
of the opportunities for more effective federal application
of the NEPA process to the significant environmental effects
of U.S. operations abroad, ranging from civilian and military
4
assistance programs. to international loan programs.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
See Appendix E.
** / Sep- Anencdix F'
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
One test of the utility of the EIS process to
agency decisionmaking is the way in which it is used
voluntarily. The Environmental Protection Agency
announced on May 7, 1974 its determination that it
was not required by law to prepare impact statements
on its regulatory programs, since it was determined that
the environmental analyses prepared under EPA's other
statutes by several courts were the functional equivalent
of EISs. However, EPA believed that for certain major
regulatory or standard-setting actions, the preparation
of impact statements would be helpful to decisionmakers..'.
Consequently it proposed procedures for regulatory EISs
in October 1974. To date only two such statements -
have been preparecandissued, although_many_others arse in
_preparation or are being planned for FY 76. it is too
early to tell whether the voluntarily EISs of EPA will
be successfully used as part of EDA's planning and
decisionmaking process._._.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M0266OR000800080019-3
 39
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Recommendations:
The manner in which the EIS process helps planning
and decisionmaking necessarily differs from agency to
agency. Agencies should review the ways in which the NEPA
process can be more thoroughly integrated into their
administrative operations and consider issuing clarifying
directives on this subject. In particular, agencies should
consider ways to concentrate their EISs on analyses of
impacts and alternatives that are most meaningful to decision
makers and the public. They. should also take steps to insure
that the more analytical EISs are also more manageable in size.
(See discussion of EIS content and quality p.93.)
C. Time Required to Complete Agency EIS Procedures
In the course of the past year, the Council has been
made aware of a number of criticisms that the EIS process
was delaying federal decisionmaking. Specific
examples of needless delay caused by EIS red tape have
been extremely rare and, when they exist, they have.
seldom been brought directly to CEQ's attention. Most
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
often CEQ hears about complaints that are extremely
general that apparently reflect misunderstandings in and
out of the government about the timing and effects of the
EIS process.
CEQ guidelines and NEPA procedures of federal agencies
call for environmental analyses.,to be part of agency project
planning. The EIS itself should document the analyses and
assist planning. Consequently, the EIS process should occur
parallel with other technical economic and social analyses
required by project or program planning and decisionmaking.
The problem of federal delays caused by NEPA appears
to have been considerably overplayed. In the early years
of NEPA, several agencies, particularly DOT and to a lesser
extent the Corps of Engineers, had a large number of projects
well into the planning or construction phase on which
significant actions still remained. The consequent need
to prepare EISs on these projects did cause considerable
delay in some cases. The- delay often appeared
unnecessary since the EIS prepared generally justified a
decision already made. But today this backlog problem is
virtually gone-and EISs are, increasingly, prepared for
actions proposed after the passage of.NEPA.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Another factor causing delays in the early years of
NEPA involved agencies' reluctance on occasion to take
the statute seriously. Attempts to bypass NEPA often
resulted in litigation with the result that agencies
were frequently required to go back and do the env-
iron-mental analysis required. Again, as the pre-NEPA proposals
diminish, this problem has also diminished.
A third reason for delay, which continues to occur, has
been caused by changing expressions of public preference --
as for example the shifts in public opinion away from a
desire for urban expressways -- which has often caused
local governments to delay their approval or to reverse
their initial decision. In such cases the EIS process
may be simply interrupted or drawn out, reflecting (but
not causing) a lack of public consensus and a consequent
need for greater deliberation in federal decisionmaking.
Lastly, there may be important reasons at the federal
level for project decisions to be delayed as part of the
EIS process. If a proposed action is complicated NEPA
requires a careful look at its consequences and thoughtful
analysis of public and agency comments. in order to arrive
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
at an informed decision. Under such circumstances delays
have been constructive. An example was the decision of
the Energy Research and Development Administration in'
reviewing the proposed surface storage facilities for
commercially generated radioactive waste management.
After completion of the commenting process on the draft
EIS, ERDA decided to prepare a new program statement to
investigate these programs further. In a number of other
projects, ranging from highways to water resources, delays
have resulted from major substantive issues still unresolved
or still awaiting the needed analysis.
There are three points in the EIS process when delays
can occur -- in preparing a draft EIS, in preparing_a final
EIS after receipt of comments, and after the final is
issued. in the early days of NEPA agencies often tacked
the EIS process onto the end of their planning and
decisionmaking processes.
There is considerable variation in administrative
procedures and complexity of projects to which the EIS
process must adapt, and consequently the time required
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
to prepare a draft EIS differs from agency-to agency
and from project to project. The scope of a project,
the experience of the persons preparing the statement,
the, relationship of the statement to the decisionmaking
process and the priority accorded by the agency management
to the statement and the project itself are all critical
factors in determining the time required to prepare a draft
EIS.
CEQ asked federal agencies to estimate the time required
to prepare a draft EIS. The results for agencies with major
NEPA 'responsibilities are. shown in table 5
It is evident that considerable differences exist among
the various agencies. The Department of-the interior,
with its great range of actions and internal administrative
procedures, estimates that draft statements on simple
projects prepared by experienced personnel require some
3 to 5 months, which time should be reduced in the near
future. Complex projects, or simple ones prepared by
the inexperienced, may double the time required, while
complex projects prepared by inexperienced personnel may
take up to 18 months to prepare.y If a project or program
is not considered to be on what Interior considers to be
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Table 5
. Time Required for Draft EIS Preparation in FY 75 (mos.)
Agency
MN
FS
1
24
13 1
SCS
36
60
48
DOD
2
24
5
COE
2
24
9 .
EPA
3
6
3
ERDA
9
13
11
GSA
4
11
5
HUD
3
6
3
DOI
3
6
5
BIA
4
6
5
BLM
2
38
20
BOR
4
12
.7
BuRec
8
28
14
F&WS
3
12
8
NPS
12
24
14
USGS
12
24
15
FAA
1
9
7
FEWA
5
16
10
NRC
3
26
10
*This period reflects time for entire project
planning, not simply EIS preparation.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 45
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
the critical path of its decision process, as may be the
case for some water resources and land management plans,
then more time may be taken. The same is true in other
agencies, as, for example, the Corps and SCS; for some
of their projects and programs it may take many years to
develop a draft EIS. Significantly, the SCS has begun to
link the draft EIS with its watershed workplan on a project
in a single decisionmaking document.
The time required to prepare a final EIS after issuance
of a draft also differs with the type of action, its
complexity and the agency involved. Most EISs are revised
after comments are received and they are issued in final
form in less than one year after release of the draft.
(See table 6 below.) For example, the average time between
releasing a draft and a final EIS in 1974 was approximately
six months for the Bureau of Land Management, 7 1/2 months
for the Environmental Protection Agency,. nine months for
the Forest Service, 10 1/2 months for the Corps of Engineers,
and just less than one year for the Federal Highway Administratic
However, for particularly complex and environmentally signifi-
cant projects the time required to evaluate and respond to
commentsx, and to make any necessary project or EIS revisions,
may take longer.
Approved Far Release 2004/11/30 CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Table 6
Average Time between Filing of DEIS and FEIS in Calendar
Year 1974 (mos.).
.
Department of Agriculture
FS 9.1
SCS 12.7
DOD
COE
EPA
ERDA
GSA
HUD
N/A
6.1
BIA 3.6
BLM 5.7
BOR 6.1
BuRec 11.7
F&WS 19.8
NPS 13
USGS 6.7
FAA 8.9
FEWA 11.9
NRC N/A
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
47-48
Agencies may hold off from issuing a final EIS while
resolving controversies. Time taken here is not for EIS
preparation but for problem resolution, which might otherwise
occur after issuance of a final.
CEQ asked a number of federal agencies and states to
evaluate the proposal that final EISs be issued within a
specified time after the draft. The general response was
that a proposed maximum time limit was unnecessary. Some
respondents feared that a specified limit might, in fact,
become the minimum time, and that the states and agencies
really needed the time they took to analyze comments
thoroughly. It was generally believed that time should
be taken at this stage to resolve differences or contro-
versies brought out by the draft EIS and that the time
saved in not making this effort might be lost if unresolved
controversy lead to protracted public controversy or
litigation.
One cause of delay in the filing of a draft or a final
EIS is the procedure used by the agency in clearing the
document through its Washington Office. in developing
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 49
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
such procedures, the major question is the extent to which
agencies seek to use the EIS process as a part of the
decisionmaking process and as a way of bringing the most
critical environmental issues directly to the attention of
the agency leadership.
After a final EIS has been filed decisions may be
delayed by litigation based on NEPA. Effects of-NEPA-related
litigation-on agency decisions, which have in many cases
been beneficial to the environment and to improved federal
decisionmaking, have not been substantial in terms of numbers of
decisionmaking delays.. To put the matter into perspective,
of the tens of thousands of federal actions with environ-
mental effects taken since 1970 only some 6,500 draft and
final EISs have been filed with the Council by federal
agencies. in contrast there were an estimated.829 cases
brought to court in which compliance with NEPA was one,
though not necessarily the most important, issue raised.
This estimate includes the maximum estimates of DOT's
NEPA-related cases. However, responses to CEQ's
litigation questionnaires have not yet been received from
FHWA, which estimates from 200 to 300 NEPA cases.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 TABLE 6
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
NEPA-Related Cases as of June 30, 1975
Agencies
Settled
Pendinn
Agriculture
33
30
Dept. of Defense (except
COE) 12
8
Corps of Engineers
34
29
Environnt ntal Protection Agency
12
12
Energy Research and Development Admin.
0
4
General Services Administration
7
9
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
46
- 48
Dept. of interior
22
61
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
17
11
Agency Total
179
212
Total all Agencies Except DOT
240
255,
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
As shown on Table 6, for all federal agencies except.
DOT there were 505 NEPA-related cases as of June 30, 1975, of
which 240 had been terminated. Preliminary analyses have
been made of 9 federal agencies, again excepting DOT, with
a total of 391 NEPA-related cases, of which 179 had been
settled by June 30,;1974, and 212 were pending. Table. 7
summarizes the claims and dispositions of these cases.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : C! RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Form A
Form B
Cases Settled
Cases Pending
Legal Action
of cases l
% of cases
of cases
l% of case.
Claim by plaintiff
no EIS and/or
112
63
92
43
EIS deficiency
82
46
67 -
32
Disposition */
EIS prepared
21
12
25
12
EIS adequate (Govt wl-) 39
22
5
2
Temporary
Injunction-
35
20
33
16
Permanent
Injunction
0
0
4
2.
Temporary
where no
injunction
EIS
23
13
21
Permanent
where no
injunction
EIS
0
TOTAL
179
Because of settlement'or court direction.
includes permanent injunctions reversed on appeal.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 53
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Recommendations:
The problem of delays caused by the EIS process has
been considerably overplayed. Usually such complaints
have reflected misunderstanding about the agency decision-
making process as well as NEPA. Inefficiencies can occur,
however. Consequently, at the request of agencies
.experiencing delays in their preparation of a draft or
final statements, or after the filing of final statements,
CEQ will work out with the agency appropriate-timing-of
agency decisions under NEPA in the context of that agency's
particular programs. It will also help develop estimates
of the resources necessary to help the agency meet its
NEPA responsibilities.
CEQ will also continue to solicit and be receptive to
any specific complaints of delays_._ caused -_by._
inefficiencies in the EIS process. It-will then follow
up the matter with the appropriate agency.
Approved For. Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
D. Joint and Lead Agency EISs
CEQ's EIS Guidelines state that where more than one
agency (1) directly sponsors an action, or is directly
involved in an action through funding, licenses, or permits,
or (2) is involved in a group of actions directly related
to each other because of their functional interdependence
and geographical proximity, consideration should be-given
to preparing one statement for all the federal actions
involved. Such an EIS could be the result of joint agency
efforts or of a designated lead agency. Where a lead agency
prepares the statement, the other agencies involved in the
effort should assist through the provision of research
and analysis with respect to their particular areas of
r-,
expertise.' This cooperative approach has been a major
benefit of NEPA.
The statement should contain an environmental assessment
of the full range of federal actions involved, should reflect
the views of all the participating agencies, and should be
prepared before major or irreversible actions have been taken
by any of the participating agencies.
ucielines, Section 1500.7
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Analysis of agency responses to CEQ's questionnaire
shows that the agencies having the most experience with lead
or joint agency EISs are Forest Service, Corps of Engineers,
EPA, NRC, Department of Transportation, and the Department.
of the interior. Most other agencies have had little experience
. with the lead or joint agency EIS concept. .
Within the Interior and Agriculture Departments,the lead
agency concept has worked well, as it did when BLM prepared,
with the help of the Forest Service, an EIS on phosphate leasing
in the Osceola National Forest.. Agencies such as EPA and the
Corps have sought to improve their agency permit roles on matters
such as fossil fuel power. plants by negotiating a formal
memorandum of understanding on lead agency EIS questions. An
agreement has nearly been completed between EPA and NRC on
similar issues regarding nuclear power plants. CEQ has
helped foster both negotiations. This determination of lead
agency duties by advance agreement has also been used suc-
cessfully by NRC with the,Corps of Engineers(on offshore
nuclear power facilities), the Coast Guard and TVA.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Environmental Impact Statement "Phosphate Leasing on the
Osceola National., Forest, Florida" (Final, June 27, 1974)..
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 56
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Agency responses to CEQ's question regarding the benefits
and problems with the lead agency concept revealed a
number of similarities.. Benefits cited included:
1. A reduction in time and costs. 2. A better understanding of other agencies' problems.
3. Better access to necessary technical expertise-.
4. A reduced chance of litigation and delay if all
agencies-cooperate tr itia- ly-i=--preparing a compre-- ------
hensive EIS.
5. Agencies can participate in a decisionmaking process
on the proposed project prior to the time that they
would otherwise be involved.
16. Decisions reached are more visible.
7. Agencies can provide substantive contributions to an EIS
before its release to public.
Problems cited with the lead agency EIS process included:
1. A lack of commitment by subordinate agencies to the
final product.
2. Difficulty of lead and subordinate agencies insuring
that the data provided by the other is accurate and
adequate.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
3. Administrative timing differences among agencies.
4. Adverse publicity is generally directed only toward
lead agency.
5. Difficulty in assuring that the action by the subordinate
agency is sufficiently covered in the EIS sous to
meet the requirements of NEPA for a "detailed statement:"
6. Difficulty in allocating EIS costs and in obtaining
a commitment of personnel and support from the subordinate.
From the responses to the agency questionnaire and
CEQ discussions with agency staff it is apparent that
there is some confusion as to the meaning of "lead agency"
and "joint"' preparation. Some respondents did not
distinguish between the terms, but most agencies inferred
that being lead agency meant taking the bulk of.-responsibility
for EIS preparation. Joint__preparation indicates .fairly
e4da1ly shared'- responsibilities of- the agencies involved.
Joint preparation may prove beneficial in coordinating
agency planning, in contrast to the result where one of
the agencies is more independent and predominant in the
preparation of the EIS. Consequently, the Forest Service,
which considers the EIS process to be an integral part of its
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR060800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
decisionmaking process, frequently prefers the joint
to the lead agency approach as a way of insuring that
J -
all agencies put their best efforts into and benefit
equally from EIS preparation.
Recommendations:
To date, the most productive method for resolving
difficulties in joint and lead agency EISs has been by
explicit. agreement between the agencies on their mutual
responsibilities in the preparation of an EIS. The
agreements mentioned above go a long way in resolving -
potential problems before they arise. Still, a number
of situations exist, such as the construction of oil and gas
pipelines, electric transmission lines and other energy
facilities where lead or joint agency EISs have been
neglected or delayed and where formal, advance agree-
ments are desirable. Upon request, CEQ will assist
agencies in developing lead agency and joint agency
agreements and in resolving problems that may arise
in implementing such an agreement.
E. The EIS Comment and Response Process
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that federal
agencies with jurisdiction and expertise and state and
toc pa r1 FDe~elea 2 /1a Qo~Qgy781~~2f~i68 ~0 0 s
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
prepared by federal agencies. The procedure for draft
EISs was established by CEQ to meet this NEPA requirement.
CEQ's review of agencies' practices under NEPA,
however, indicates that nearly all agencies solicit views
of other agencies, either within the Executive Branch as a
whole or within the same department, prior to filing a
draft EIS. A number of agencies within Interior circulate
a preliminary draft EIS to other federal and state and
local agencies. SCS and NPS regularly include the public
in this review. (See Table 8.) The Corps of Engineers
accomplishes a similar result for new projects by formally
circulating a draft, a revised draft and a final EIS,:
FHWA and UMTA, however, have procedures requiring state
and local review before circulation of a draft EIS to
federal agencies. For these reasons the formal commenting
process after release and circulation of the draft EIS
should not be considered the sum total of the EIS commenting
process at least for federal and state agencies and frequently
for the general public as well.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA7RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 bU
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Table 8
Agencies that Circulate a Pre-Draft EIS for Comment
Dept. of Agriculture
FS
scs
Dept. of the Interior
BIA
BLM
BOR
BuMines
BuRec
F&WS
NPS
Dept. of Transportation
infrequently
to both federal agencies and
the public
only to agencies with expertise
to other federal and state agencies
circulates all wild & scenic
rivers and trail studies
only to agencies with expertise
only within Interior
rarely
to both federal agencies and
the public
to other federal agencies
FHWA to state and local agencies before
TAKTA circulation of draft EIS
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 61
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Most agencies have reported. a noticable improvement
in the quality of comments received, on their EISs over
the past few years. Nevertheless, they still cite examples
of comments that are neither constructive nor, if_potentially,
so, adequately supported by useful or relevant data.
Moreover, many of these same agencies cite their own
problems of limited staff to prepare consistently constructive
and substantive comments on other agency EISs. In many cases
these difficulties reflect agencies' decisions to allocate the
-minimum amount of staff time to EIS commenting, as opposed to
EIS preparation..--
Time constraints on commenting have also caused problems.
The 45 dale usually permitted for draft EIS comments flies by
quickly when large Departments solicit their opinions from
their most relevant experts,--which frequently are in
various regional or field offices, and then seek to coordinate
a single Departmental comment. Table 9 below indicates-whether
comments are prepared in Washington or the field. it
shows that for the vast majority of agencies with major NEPA
responsibilities the comments are mostly prepared in the field
and in more than half they are either cleared or filed in D.C.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Table, 9
Whether EIS Comments are Prepared in D.C. or Field
USDA
FS All field prepared - clearance in D.C.
SCS 80-90% field prepared and filed.
AF Most in D.C.
Army Most in D.C.
COE Most field prepared and filed.
Navy Most common from field, cleaance in D.C.
EPA 90-95% field prepared and filed.
ERDA Most prepared in D.C.
GSA Approximately 50% in D.C. and 50% in the region:
HEW Most field prepared and cleared in D.C.
HUD On projects - field prepares; on policy -
D.C. prepares.
BIA 90-95% field prepared - dept. response.
BLM 90% field prepared - dept. response.
BuRec 80% field prepared - dept. response.
BuMines 60% prepared in D.C.
BOR 44% field prepared and filed.
F&WS`' 70% field prepared and filed.
roved For Relea a 20U4[1-1130prT -Rb"8MB466 1 00080019-3
USGS 65% field prepared - dept. responses.
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Whether EIS Comments are Prepared in D.C. or Field (Con't)
DOT
FAA Most field prepared and filed.
FHWA. Most field prepared and filed.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-ADP78MO266OR000800080019-3
EPA is the only federal agency that regularly
comments on all EISs, draft and final, based on its
obligations under NEPA and under ?309(b) of the Clean
Air Act. In order to improve the quality of its comments,
EPA has prepared a number of substantive guides for
commenting on particular issues. These guides are to
be particularly valuable to EPA's regions, which: prepare 90-95
percent of EPA's EIS comments and should improve the
substantive quality of EPA's comments. However,
EPA often confronts a problem of inadequate time to prepare
detailed, substantive comments, and occasionally it has
not received EISs until considerably after their filing
with the Council. EPA faces a special problem on final
EISs, on which most federal agencies do not comment formally.
In many cases, however, the 30 days permitted for such
comments has limited EPA's ability to conduct thorough.
and timely reviews of~final EISs.
Time constraints have also proved troublesome among the
states commenting on EISs. Frequently they have received
EISs considerably after the comment period has officially
begun and have reported difficulty in obtaining waivers
for additional review time. These and other problems of
the W d*;FR I&?SP
A IJ : 'k 8M0 660h?da> I0080019-3
fGNftC
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
The quality of EISs has-occasionally suffered from
the failure of many agencies to develop priorities for their
EIS review and commenting process based on the relation of the
issues raised to their own particular jurisdiction and expertis..
The failure to develop such criteria may reflect an agency's
unwillingness to devote sufficient resources to the commenting
process. However, the need for such priorities was recently
recognized by the FEA, whose proposed NEPA guidelines state
that FEA will give priority to effects of proposed actions
on energy supply and conservation.
A general complaint about the commenting process -
by federal, state, and local agencies an the public alike --
is that comments do not receive adequate response from the
initiating agency. The Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA
have experienced considerable frustrations from a lack of
an adequate response. CEQ's review of state comments on the
NEPA process indicates that states also share a common
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
feeling that federal agencies do not give their comments
due regard; cursory responses and apparent unwillingness
to accept state data have-often discouraged states from
reviewing final EISs for their attention to state criticisms
of the draft EIS.
From the federal agency point of view, the weakness
in insuring adequate responses to comments may often
.result from the failure of the commenting agency to follow--
"up its comments. Many agencies give only a cursory review
of final EISs to see if their comments on the draft were
accommodated.. However, no procedural mechanism exists for
agencies to insure that their comments are,. in fact, accom-
modated not only in the final EIS but in the final action
taken. Even if an agency responds to comments by amending
its _ultimate action, NEPA does not establish a monitoring
procedure to insure t?at any environmental safeguards
are actually employed.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Recommendations:
In order to improve the value of EIS comments to
informed federal decisionmaking, several steps should be
taken.
(1) Federal agencies should define, after consultation
with CEQ, their expertise and jurisdiction for purposes
of commenting on specific issues and topics of EISs.
These determinations should then be published in the
Federal Register by CEQ.
(2) Federal agencies should develop, in consultation
with CEQ, priorities for devoting commenting time and
resources to particular issues and topics in EISs. These
priorities should be published by CEQ in the Federal Register
along with agency statements of expertise and jurisdiction.
(3) Federal, state and local agencies should alert
CEQ to any comments made on an EIS which in, their judgment
received inadequate response from the agency preparing the
EIS. CEQ will then follow up the matter with the initiating
agency and recommend action if necessary.
(4) Federal, state and local agencies should alert
CEQ to problems of EISs received notably after the comment
period has begun so that CEQ can take timely action with
the irp ~ Alter P@'MW2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO2660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
(5) Federal agencies should alert CEQ to any
comments received which were particularly helpful in
improving the EIS and/or the pending decision.
(6) Federal agencies should periodically make their
own internal evaluations of their comment and response
procedures.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
F. NEPA-Related Costs
For a number of reasons it has not been, and may
never be, possible, or indeed worth the effort, to detenn ine
the precise costs of federal compliance with the EIS process.
First, some agencies -- such as the Forest Service -- developed
environmental procedures and staff in accordance with laws passed
prior to NEPA. For them NEPA simply elaborated upon
and modified an older resource management system, so that
much of the planning and decisionmaking whose costs are
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 69
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
now attributable to the EIS process in fact preceded NEPA.
Other agencies, such as the Corps and the former AEC, analyzed
specific environmental issues, radiological or water
quality effects of projects, for example, prior to NEPA.
These costs too have become part of their EIS-related
cost accounting.
Second, federal agencies are. affected by laws like the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 as amended the-- Fe-de-,
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, and the Clean Air
Act of 1970; they require some special environmental
analyses that may make cost estimates specific to NEPA difficult.
Third, many agencies, such as ERDA, Commerce, the
Forest Service, DOT, and HEW, have no established method
of determining EIS process costs because the costs are---a-`p art of
their administrative planning and decisionmaking. Consequently,
their estimates can be considered only approximate.
Finally, the agencies that do determine EIS-related
costs, e.g. the Corps, NRC, SCS, and the Department of
Defense, reckon them quite differently. Within interior,
each bureau determines costs in accordance with its own
needs. BLM's cost accounting system includes the preparation
and reviekw of impact statements as well as the environmental
16 U.S.G. ff 661 et. se .
pAgpro pd I j pegA0' t,W(i0 : ,@I6 RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
analyses, whereas BOR identifies the costs associated with
reviewing but not preparing EISs because the latter is
considered a cost of doing business.
Unless these differences are constantly born in mind
comparisons among the agencies can be quite misleading.
Estimated costs of preparing and reviewing EISs are
shown in Table 10. They are relatively small compared to
annual budgets or to the costs of major construction or
licensing projects. For example, the Corps of Engineers
estimates that in fiscal year 1974 it spent about $21.9
million on EIS, which is approximately 1.25 percent of its
annual operating budget. The NRC estimates that it spent
$14.9 million on NEPA in 1975, which is about 2.2 percent
of. the cost of one nuclear power plant,.
These cost figures do not, however, include the costs
of environmental assessments. in addition, the cost data shown
do not include the non-federal costs of EIS preparation and review
incurred by the states or municipalities, pursuant to their
applications for federal highway or sewer grants.,.
Lastly, it should be noted that some agencies can,
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 process.-
Agency NEFA coats? costs.
COE
USDA
F5
SCS
DOC
DOD
1/
DQ1
HI1.1
BOR
R
u
N
s.w
N PS
USGS
DOT
EPA
ERUA-
PEA
PPC
GSA
SEW
BUD
NRC4/
Approved For Release 2004/11/30:C31--RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Padoral Ajoncy Coat' of xli pr..a r::tion anti. Review and Commenting
TAntx ]_i',)-
Does Lthe
agcncy-havu FY 1074 FY 1974 FY 1974
formal pro- estim-it.') cost, of total EIS
cases for EIS pre- review coot and.'
determining par- ti1_rr and Comp t review/
rrnmrnt cast--
c
FY 1974 FY 1975
total costs EIS
as percen- prelaaratlon
tape of 2/ costa " 1?
operating bud.ret. eat t'd .-
?
(a)
yes
$21,933,832
$ 76,000
$22,009,832
1.2%
no-use
estimates
(b)
27.000.000
225.000
27,225,000
2.7%
no-use
estimates
(c)
3,500,000
360.200
3.860,200
1.0%
estimates
125,000
NA
125.000
NA
estimates
117,190
11.295
128,48S
.73%
1a0-uaa
(b)
1 516 non
estimates
342,000
1,174,000
no-uae
estimates
(d)
5,200.000
NA
NA
(e)
000
700
.1%
estimates
15,200.1OfQ
5,500,000
,
20,
yes
4
3,544,
305,000
3,849,243
yes
(
575,000
995,400
1,570,400
1.4%
no-use
estimates
(b)
3,796,000
390,000,
4,186.000
no-use
(cl
NA
estimates
NA
1.849.000
NA
no-use
(c)
00
54%.
estimates
1,900,900
545,000
2,445,9
.
no-use
estimates
(g)
2,400,000
no-use
estimates
(b)
31,746,000
250,000
31,996.000
.18%
yes
1.280.6
1,600.000
2,880.000
.048%
no-u5'
NA
estimates
no-use
estimates
yes
NA
NA
c~)
1,481,419
NA
NA
70,000
1,551,419 -- -
5.4%
no-use
estimates
(b)
1,600,000
5,000
1,605,000
no-use
estimates
(c)
40,000
100,000
140,000
no-use
(c)
000
275
.07%
estimates
6,000.000
275,000
,
6,
yes
NA
NA
(a)
'$27,057,447
4b)
27,000,000
(c)
3.500.000
(b)
85, C,00
161,630
(b)
5 6.680
(d)
4,200.000
(e)
23,400,000
NA (c)
600,000
(b)
4,050.000
(c)
2.013,600
(h)
51000,000
(b)
36.550,084
6.300.00
(b, e)
3,400,000
(i)
330.0b00
1,333,000
(b)
2,235,000
(C)
80,000
(b)
14,900,000
NA s Not Available
From responses to a NEFA questionnaire distributed by CEO to all federal agencies in November 1974.
Federal Budget Figures for FY 1976.
f
rom
determined
I/ Operating Budgets Figures for DOI include all interior agencies including those noted in this Table.
ERDA and NRC were established in 1975 and thus have no figures for FY 1974.
Coats include: in-house and contractor staff,
blic meetings.
u
V
Costs include in-house and contractor staff only.
Coats include in-house staff only..
Costs include: in-house aril contractor staff, travel costs. research costs, administrative
r1,?~1 ts of environmental assessments.
b. d
and pu
Costs n udo pr eSC~ka1CJ61a+RE~iRr7 tSMQ2+860R@0fl$098A019-3
Costs inelude: in-house staff, program services. leave, and other indirect costs or all
environmental assessments and EIS's. acncies' expertise.
_ ,..._. .rAff and the cost of obtaining other a ~_--
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
in some circumstances,charge fees for federal EIS preparation
from project applicants. Specific provisions for certain
agencies to charge such fees have been made in. three major cases
BuRec For small reclamation project loans under the Small
Reclamation Project Loan Act, Pub. L. 84-984, as
amended by Pub. L. 85-47,. Pub. L. 89-5.33 and Pub. L. 92--
BLM For applicants for rights-of-way across public lands
and the outer continental shelf, under Sections 201
and 204 of the Public Lands Administration Act (43 USC
1371, 1374) and Section 28(1) of the-1973 amendments to
the Mineral Leasing Act (87 Stat. 567,579).
CON The applicant may be responsible for providing
certain data or for paying for special studies
required. See 33 CFR 209.120, para. (h) (2) (vi) .
NRC General licensing fees cover EIS preparation.
See 10 CFR part 170.
(See page 80 for further discussion of EIS cost recovery by the
agencies.)
Approved For Release 2004/11130 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 73
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Recommendations
Given the considerable differences in agency procedures
and statutory environmental obligations and NEPA's mandate
that the EIS process be thoroughly integrated in agency
planning and decisionmaking processes, institution of a
standard method of agery EIScost-accountingwould be
extremely difficult. However, agencies may
find it useful to develop their own specific
cost accounting procedures for individual aspects of the EIS
process such as the EIS commenting-and_.response process.
*- * *
Special Problems in Applying NEPA
(IJ "Legislative EISs
NEPA requires that agencies "include in every
recommendation or report on proposals for legislation"
likely to have a significant environmental effect a
detailed environmental impact statement.' Although there
have been a number of legislative EISs over the past few
years it is a requirement "more honored in the breach
than the observance." There are several reasons.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 74
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
1. While the ordinary project impact statement is
appropriate for site-specific legislative proposals
(such as water resource or wilderness proposals) it
would be onerous to prepare such an EIS for "every
recommendation or report" submitted by an agency on
proposed legislation with significant impacts.
2. Impact statements on broad legislative programs submitted
by the Administration to Congress are usually developed
after, not along with the proposal, and they have become
an exercise to justify rather than to influence the
.resulting bill.
3. Congressional committees- neither prepare impact
statements for their own bills reported out nor do
they apparently use those 'EISI-prepared and submitted
by the Executive Branch. FEA's draft EIS on the Energy
Independence Act -- a whole package of bills -- received
little attention on the Hill.
4. The concept. of draft and final EIS's has little meaning
for such EIS's, since once a draft is prepared and sent
to Congress, along with the proposed bill, there is no
obvious purpose served in preparing a final EIS on a bill
that may soon bear little resemblance to the on inal.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
5. Impact statements on appropriation requests have not
been practical to prepare because (a) the budget line
items seldom correspond with administrative actions
on which agencies have a duty to prepare EISs and would
consequently create a difficult administrative burden, and
(b) the process of determining budget levels has. been an
internal, confidential Executive Branch process, which
would be inhibited by public circulation of draft EIS
and the resulting pressure of lobbying efforts by business,
labor and environmental groups.
The conclusion expressed by most agencies regarding
legislative impact statement requirements, therefore, is
that simplier procedures should be established-to establish
and reconcile the clear informational needs of Congress
and the public with practical and not wholly speculative analyses
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11430 :,PIA RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Recommendations
Specific CEQ guidance on legislative EISs are needed to
clarify the different treatment appropriate for different
types of legislative proposals so that environmental analyses
are more useful to decisionmakers and the public. Distinctions
now exist between site-specific legislative proposals of the
agencies and other proposals for broad programs. Site specific
legislative proposals falling within a particular agency's
jurisdiction and existing programs, such ,water resource
projects requiring congressional action or proposals for
wild and scenic rivers or wilderness, should continue to
follow present EIS procedures. In contrast, the precise shape.o
broader legislative proposals frequently depends on unforeseeable
Congressional action; moreover--
their impact may, in any
event, be largely speculative until regulations or policies
or specific proposals and EISs are prepared after enactment.
Consequently, and in light of agency experiences noted above,
new EIS__procedures are needed for'allrecommendations or reports
on proposed legislation, excepting site-specific matters, whose
impacts are likely to be significant.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
CEQ guidance should provide that(l) agencies should prepare
environmental assessments to be circulated with any proposed
legislation in the 0MB review process for comment from
other agencies (2) a final, detailed EIS should be prepared
on the basis of the analy_sisand--_interagency_.review_iethe__
impacts are deemed significant and have not otherwise been
analyzed in the EIS process, (3) the EIS should be submitted
to the Congress, other federal agencies and the public
with the legislative. proposal, or as soon thereafter as
possible but., in any even-t,.15 days before any Congressional
hearings, (4) federal agency,. state and local government and publi
comments on the EIS should be sent to the initiating agency,
which will forward them to the relevant Congressional
committee, (5), on the request of the committee, the
initiating agency will.respond .-to the. comments-.received_ozt
the final EIS.
To help remedy the administrative problem posed by
requiring EISs on appropriation legislative proposals,
agencies should develop procedures to analyse budgetary
levels and their impacts in program EISs. Provision for
Approved For Release 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78MO2660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
annual updates, or EIS supplements, should be made to
address any budgetary changes that would have significant
environmental impacts.' Recommended CEQ guidance on program
EISs will necessarily address appropriation
analysis as well.
(2) Permit Impact Statements
The impact statement process affects private
parties, who initiate a proposal and then seek permission
from a federal agency to proceed. Agencies like the NRC
and FPC are by statute specifically in the business of
licensing particular kinds of facilities -- nuclear power
plants, hydroelectric and LNG terminals -- and have elaborate,
routine procedures for pursuing their licensing mandates.
Other agencies, such as BLM, FS, the Corps, the Coast Guard,
and the State Department also must grant permits -- for
pipeline crossings of international borders, crossing federal
otherwise affecting navigable waters of the U.S. with
bridges or piers. Permits like these may require impact state-
ments if they are needed for the construction of such facilities a-,
fossel fuel plants, paper mills, major housing
or recreation projects, each of whose environmental effects may
be Sig rFbr Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR060800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
(a) Use of Applicant Information
In response to CEQ's questionnaire, all relevant
agencies noted that environmental reports submitted by
applicants for licenses, permits,.etc., are used as
.basic information for the agency's impact statement
after agency verification. However, the extent :and
type of information sought from applicants by agencies
varies considerably. Applicants for long pipelines
requiring a number of federal, state and local permits and
a federal impact statement 'tisually provide extensive
.environmental reports with their application. Similarly,
applicants for federal permits to build fossil fuel plants or
other large industrial facilities have submitted such reports
to Interior, the Corps, and the Forest Service.. These agencies
have used these reports then as the basis for their impact state-
ments. Thus, for large industrial concerns, or for large recrea-
tion companies (such as the Disney Corp. seeking permission
from the F.S. for the.Mineral King Recreation Project) the
agencies can stipulate, or may routinely receive, vast
amounts of useful information from the applicants in the
form of an environmental report. Such information is
Approved-Fer Release 2004/11/30 ~-jCIA-RDP_7$JW.2660F2QQ0800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
routinely sought by the NRC and the FPC for their license
actions. it is also sought by the NPS, by BLM and, in
specific cases, by the Corps. But no uniform assessment
criteria for similar projects have been established for all
the agencies that would help the private parties anticipate
the EIS information needs-of the federal government.
Most agencies do not seek help from applicants to cover
directly the costs of their impact statement preparation. NRC
and BLM do so routinely as permitted by their laws and regula-
tions. The Corps does not do so, however, and other agencies-
such as the Forest Service lack such specific statutory authority
to obtain direct compensation from the applicant. EPA, in
beginning its-EIS program for the issuance of new source
effluent discharge permits has, in the case of the proposed
Pittston Refinery at Eastport,Maine, sought to work, along
with other agencies, directly with the consultant hired
by Pittson to write an environmental report. This information
will be evaluated prior to EPA's preparation of a draft EIS.
More recently EPA initiated a procedure for a, permit
applicant to pay a consultant to - work- closely with-EPA-
In. . ~ .. __ -- --- - -- .__ _-
.in. developing an impact-. statement.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
In all these cases, however federal agencies are
required by NEPA to evaluate and verify independently any
information received from a permit applicant, and cannot----
delegate the actual preparation_of an-EIS. In.-agencies----
like the Interior Department, Forest Service, the Corps, %
and EPA, considerable
staff capability is usually available to allow an
independent agency role. But in any given case agency_
work priorities and tire constraints may mean that the
applicant's figures and analyses are uncritically
accepted in the draft EIS. Because, unlike the NRC and
FPC, these agencies have a variety of other operating
duties and have no easy means of anticipating and
planning for the receipt of permit applications, the
staff problem can be acute.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Determining Reasonable Alternatives
The determination of reasonable alternatives to
analyze in. the EIS should reflect the agencies' planning
and decisionmaking process. However, special problems
arise when agencies are called on to evaluate a permit
application when the federal environmental analysis has
been late or when the applicant has gathered little or no
information on alternatives. Neither problem should exist
in the case of a federal project on which the NEPA process,
and the orderly federal analysis of alterna tives,,can
begin early. Agencies such as the Corps of Engineers, EPA,
BLM and the Forest Service face considerable difficulty
in determining how to analyze and how much time and money
to spend analyzing, alternatives that their permit applicants
have never considered, let alone proposed.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 83
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Timing
With rare expeption, agencies do not begin
formally to establish a work -Plan--- on a project's
impact statement until after a formal application has
been received. The Corps has done so on a few occasions, and
BLM more frequently, but it is the formal application that
nearly always triggers the need to make an agency decision
on a permit, and which indicates the seriousness of the
applicant's intentions. it is at that point that the
agency will determine whether it needs more information
from the applicant, and, if so, what precisely is needed.
More difficult questions arise when an agency
receives an application but is unsure whether the
project will be allowed by other levels of government.
Federal agencies required to give permits naturally
prefer not to commit themselves to the extensive work
and considerable expense involved in preparing.an impact
statement on the project while necessary local and state
approval remains in doubt. As in other cases, however,
the timing of federal involvement is usually decided
by the applicant, who may submit formal applications
to the various levels of government simultaneously
or in series, based on,the applicant's own analysis of the
costsArgeneitsleo ?hOAm/1o/f30each par~icu6far0appro8ac9-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
timing, new problems arise for the NEPA process, when
simultaneous or serial applications. are made for state
and federal permits. Many states, such as New York,
California, Maryland, and Maine have siting, EIS or
land use statutes and procedures of their own which
require information from the applicant and analyses and
documents from the state government that are similar to
federal requirements. Each state's laws and procedures
are different from the others. Yet every effort should
be made to avoid duplication of information and analysis
by the applicant and by the state and federal agencies.
EPA has sought to avoid this problem in New York
state by working with state officials and utility
companies on ways to anticipate both state and federal
requirements for information on fossil fuel power
plants, to permit.some simultaneous federal and state
analyses of data, and to minimize duplication. NRC
has initiated efforts with different states to avoid
unnecessary duplication of effort in its nuclear licensing
procedures. As states take an increasing role in land use,
the problem of making sure that questions vital to the federal
EIS process are asked at the earliest appropriate time by
state 'and federal" .agencies will become increasingly important.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : @IA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Recommendations:
CEQ should work closely with the agencies and consider
further agency guidance for (1) determining the kind and
amount of information to be sought from applicants when
first requesting a permit, (2) allow applicants to pay
consultants to work closely with the federal agency in ways
that will insure objective agency evaluation of data and
i__continuouscontrol over and participation in the environmental
analysesor EISs_produced,_(3) determine the scope of
analysis and the reasonable alternatives to be addressed
in the NEPA process (4) determine when to begin the permit EIS
process and when to complete the final EIS, keeping in
ming the need to coordinate federal and state EISs.
Grant Actions
Several federal agencies, most notably DOT, HUD,
BOR, and EPA, make grants which can require impact statements.
Many of their EIS problems are similar to those of permit
agencies because grant projects start with an application
from another level of government. These problems involve
the appropriate scope of an EIS, the analytical needs of the
agency, and the appropriate timing of the EIS.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Grant EISs al b present questions that differ from those
Of permit EISs. One difference is that grant applications
are often based on state or municipal pans which arc called fore
by federal law or regu t n. For example,"BOR approves
state recreation'plans under the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965, as amended, and state applications for Land and
Water Recreation funds are to be consistent with such plans. BOR,
however, rarely prepares an impact statement on state applications,
although it does receive assessments prepared by the state,
and apparently has found little utility in the EIS mechanism.
Nor has BOR used the EIS process effectively in its evaluation
and approval of the state recreation plans.
Under Pub.-Law 94-83a federal agency with a statewide
grant program is specifically allowed to delegate EIS
preparation to offices with statewide jurisdiction over
the program, so long as the federal agency guides and
participates in the preparation and approves the document
before its public release. Federal agencies like BOR can,
therefore, transfer EIS preparation duties to statewide
recreation agencies for both state action plans and individual
P. L. 88-578..
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Land and Water Conservation Act grants. Whether such
transfer will result in improved environmental review for
Land and Water Conservation Fund actions remains to be seen.
State highway departments, have under. P.L. 94-83 been
permitted to continue their long-standing practive of
preparing EISs for FHWA on their own highway grant proposals.
The also prepare state "action plans" on transportation or
highway systems for the state, as required by DOT's
interpretation of ?109(h) of the Federal Aid. Highway Act
of 1970. EISs of a program nature have not been prepared
by fHWA.because it believes there is no direct federal
involvement early--in highway planning. Consequenlty,
EISs on highway grant. proposal have
continued to be based on specific projects in individual
states rather than on highway programs or a highway corridor
through several states-as;
for example, the proposed widening
of Route 7 going through Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
This project was the subject of Conservation Society
v. Vermont,, _._.____F. 2d __._, (2nd.Cir. 1975).
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR060800080019-3
 ? is ~s .
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
* *
Recommendations:
The application of Public Law 94-83 to federal state
grant programs should be carefully monitored by CEQ to
determine its effects and whether delegation of EIS
preparation should be authorized in other circumstances.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Water Resource Actions
A major unresolved issue in water resource planning
and decisionmaking is the relationship of the EIS process
to the Principles and Standards (P&S) of the Water Resources
Council (WRC). The Departments of the Army, Interior, and
Agriculture are primarily concerned with this integration
since many of their programs are covered by the P&S as
well as by NEPA. CEQ is currently working with the agencies
via a WRC task force to develop and consider options for
improving the planning and decisionmaking process, avoiding
unnecessary duplication of documents, and using the EIS
process constructively to display the analyses underlying
the application of the Principles and Standards.
These same agencies could also take independent steps
toward resolving this issue. The Soil Conservation Service has
already modified its planning process so that an EIS is developed
and circulated jointly with its watershed-Work Plan, thereby
eliminating much of the previous duplication of information
contained in these two documents. The Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation are considering similar possibilities.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
A second issue in water resources planning which involves
the EIS process is the extent to which federal agencies develop
and consider flood plain management alternatives in designing pro-
jects for flood control. Development of plans involving nonstruc-
tural measures to achieve flood damage reduction while making
appropriate use of flood plain lands is consistent-with-both
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) and
Section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974
(P.L. 93-251); however, such alternatives have not received
adequate treatment in most EISs and other agency planning
documents to date.
Recommendations
Water resource agencies should implement one or more of the
options for EIS-P&S integration being developed by the WRC task
forge, and should consider similar options for integrating
the EIS into the planning process for actions not covered by
the P&S.
Planning of federal actions which involve flood control
measures should regularly include the development and con-
sideration of floodplain management plans which include non-
structural measures. Such plans should be explicitly set forth
and discussed in the environmental impact statements for these
propos'ArOpRFVt&*9F Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
-C5L International Actions
Over the past year the application of NEPA and the EIS
requirement to federal actions abroad has received considerable
attention from the State Department, AID and CEQ. CEQ has.
taken the position that NEPA and CEQ's guidelines apply_to_-._____
all federal agencies wherever their actions take place.
The State Department has agreed with CEQ to the extent that
actions abroad which may have a significant impact. in the U.S.
_*l
are subject to EIS procedures. AID, however,- recently
issued a Policy Determination under which the EIS process would
apply fully not only to overseas actions with significant
effects on the U.S. bur also to actions which "would significantl-
affect the environment of areas outside any nation's territorial
jurisdiction (e.g., the oceans)." For other actions, where the
environmental impact falls in the territory of states receiving
aid, or on adjacent states, AID's policy is to prepare environ-
mental assessments which would consider alternatives and which
would otherwise conform with the "concepts embodied in NEPA."
A particularly important part of AID's NEPA policy involves the
plan to develop environmental capabilities in recipient countries.
,*1 A Federal Court recently disagreed with this limited con-
struction of NEPA's application when it ordered DOT to'
prepare an EIS on the effects~;of the proposed Darien Gap
Highway in Columbia and Panama (connecting link of the Pan-
American Highway) on the environment of the U.S. as well as
on the other two countries. Sierra Club v. Coleman,
Civ. No. 75-1044 (D.C. D.C October 17?.1975).
Approved For Release 2 04/11/30: CIA-RDP78M02660Rb008000 0019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
AID is now developing its NEPA regulations which will spell
.out the precise scope and procedures for its new EIS and
environmental assessment policy. The new law and procedures
being developed for U.S. international actions will have
important implications for all U.S. agencies operating abroad,
such as the Export Import Bank,-which has not established NEPA
regulations..
Recommendations
NEPA applies to all federal agencies. Those agencies
operating abroad should develop EIS_procedures- providing far-
-'--environmental analyses of impacts falling outside as well as
inside the U.S. CEQ will work with-any-agency which believes
that modifications of CEQ's guidelines calling for prior public
disclosure are needed. Such modifications may be desirable
for reasons of national security or because special foreign
policy complications may arise from prior disclosure of an
assessment when. the environmental impacts of a project proposed
by another country are localized.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
H. Quality and Content of the EIS
The use of the EIS process in federal planning and
decisionmaking has depended to an important degree on the
quality and proper focus of EIS data and analyses. Although
over the past six years much of the legal and administrative
emphasis on the EIS requirement has been procedural,-the
content of EISs has improved considerably. To continue this
trend many agencies have developed general and specific
substantive check lists and guidelines for analyzing the
impacts of certain specific kinds of projects. * However,
efforts to improve the substantive quality and utility
of EISs must address several problems requiring more diffi-
cult analysis.. One is how to determine the appropriate scope
of analysis of EISs given the need to consider impacts on
the "human", not simply the physical environment. Another
*f Selected examples of substantive guides completed by
federal agencies are: 'Guidelines for the Environmental
.Impact Assessment of Small Structures and Related Activities
in Coastal Bodies of Water (Corps of -Engineers)] Prepara-
tion of Environmental Statements: Guidelines for Discussion
of Cultural Resources (Department of the Interior, NPS);
Environmental Impacts Associated with Electric Transmission
Lines (NRC); Guidelines for Review of Environmental Impact
Statements, Vol. I, Highway Projects (EPA); and Social
Impacts, Highways (DOT). A larger number of similar
impact guides are being prepared in these and other
federal agencies.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 probl p9e-A(~,gr E.I~e~kWgMA)ly8ru r 7tPAg 0O$40tvr4 EIS
process in ways that are most meaningful to the decisionmakers
evaluating a proposed action and its alterntives. Since
neither of these problems has been defined specifically in
NEPA or in.CEQ's guidelines federal agencies have generally
sought to determine their own standards of analytical ade-
quacy on a case-by-case basis.
(1) Scope of Analysis
Although the "human environment" is not defined in
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, CEQ and federal agencies have con-
strued the goals of the Act in Title I to require a definition
that includes the social as well as the physical environment.
Thus OSHA, for example, has sought to apply the EIS requirement
to the indoor work environment and the effects of occupational
health stipulations. However, the extent to which agencies analy
primary (direct) or secondary (indirect) social.impacts varies car
siderably with the type of action proposed. The Armed Services hzn-
devoted considerable attention in EISs to'the effect on
employment, school and public services of a proposed action
to relocate or close certain facilities. DOT has similarly
analyzed the social impacts of highway EISs, and the FS and
several interior bureaus have analyzed effects of various
Y
land management actions on community and cultural values.
For all agencies, however, the problem of measuring and
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
predicting social impacts is substantial.
Economic analyses can be and are included in EISs.
CEQ guidelines provide that where agencies conduct an
economic cost/benefit analysis of proposed actions it
should be attached to or summarized in the environmental
impact statement, along with an indication of "the-extent
to which environmental costs have not been reflected in such
1
analyses." Under present-practices 7 of the 19 federal
agencies with major EIS responsibilities regularly include
cost benefit analyses in their EISs (see Table- 11L. The
Corps of Engineers, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Energy Research and Development Administration, and, occasionally,
several others prepare such economic analyses and include or
refer to them in their impact statements. (Not. shown in the
table-but strongly favoring the inclusion of economic as well as
environmental analysis in EISs, is the Commerce Department.)
Other agencies, notably the Department of the Interior and
the Environmental Protection Agency, generally do not prepare
Section 1500.8
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR060800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Table 11
Whether Agencies prepare Economic Benefit/Cost Analyses
of Projects
Dept. of Agriculture
F.S.
SCS
DOD
Yes
Yes
AF No
Army Yes
Navy- Yes, on occasion
COE Yes
B IA No
,=BLM, Occasionally
BOR No
BuRec No
F&WS No
NPS No
USGS No
DOT No
NRC Yes
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 :.CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
such analyses. If on occasion they do, they do not include them
in their impact statements. Consequently, considerable
diversity exists among the agencies with respect to their
approach to economic analyses of proposed projects and the
inclusion of such analysis in the EIS. This is due to their
different administrative procedures and to their somewhat
different definitions of the "human environment,."
Frequently federal agencies have found that the most
important impacts direct or indirect,, of a proposal are more
related to the socialand__economic than physical environment.
Consequently DOD, for example, has frequently been pressed by
Congressmen and local communities to address social
and economic effects: of proposed actions
on Defense facilities because these effects seem to be the
most controversial and because the EIS seems to be the only
way that the public can obtain information on them- Thus,
whereas the inclusion of social and economic impact analyses
might in some cases dilute the emphasis on environment, as the
Department of the Interior fears, the Defense Department has
found it expedient, but troublesome, to provide the public
with information on economic and social issues critical to
i a decision. In these, usually controversial, cases the EIS
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
has filled a need of the public for information about social
and economic impacts on the human environment -- information that
without the EIS process, would at least be more difficult to
obtain.. Nevertheless, because methods of social, if not
economic, impact analyses are undeveloped or obscure it has
been difficult for federal agencies to determine what kind
and degree of analyses are reasonably requ93erd by NEPA.
Approved For Release 2004/1'1/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
2. Level of Analysis
Once an impact statement is to be written federal
agencies have also faced difficulties in determining the
appropriate level of their analyses and the relationship of
the analyses to any previous or subsequent EISs on related
actions. Agencies such as ERDA, Commerce, Forest Service,
HEW, DOD, the Interior Department and EPA recognize various
levels, or a hierarchy of EISs. At each of these levels
the type of analysis has necessarily differed, depending
on the kind of information appropriate to an informed decision
on the proposed action. The hierarchy of the Forest Service
EISs illustrates the principles involved. Its recently
completed draft impact statement on its long-range program
(pursuant to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974) was designed to address broad
national and regional impacts and alternatives. However
the second tier of Forest Service environmental analyses
involves a large number of impact statements on units or
planning areas of individual national forests, each unit
covering an area of some 20,000 to 200,000 acres. A third tier o{'
impact statements may be required by the Forest Service to
analyze the impacts of more site-s-Recific actions such as road
construction, some major timber sales, or land acquisitions.
P. L. 9.3-378;0:.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
While at each level the Forest Service has received occasional
criticism that the EISs prepared had insufficient detailed
analyses the focus of the three-tiered approach has been
on information needed for the agency's program and/or land
use planning decisions and the EISs have served a definite
administrative purpose.
In many cases agencies have confused the purpose of their
EIS approach so that the documents produced are overladen with
detailed description at the expense of analyses related to the
proposed action and its alternatives. Consequently, EISs have
often been unweildy and virtually unusable for decisionmakers and
the public.
CEQ guidelines state that EIS descriptions should be
succinct and that the discussion of impacts and ..lte.rnatives
should be the heart of the EIS. These guidelines have
not, however, been followed by all agencies for a number of
reasons -- because of a misconception by some EIS preparers
that the EIS should be- a comprehensive, highly technical
and scientific document, because of the agencies receipt
of voluminous material from an applicant or consultant that
is too time.consuming to edit, or because the agencies lawyers
recommend that, to cover every possible contingency, if the
agency should be sued, the adequacy of thSs-._mu.st..be
determined by its detail and conseaq~uelt ie~igt
-- Approved For Release 2004/11/36 : CIA-RDP78M0 601W0O80~00&019-.3
/ Section 1500.8.
 101
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Recommendations
CEQ should work with the agencies in developing more
general agency guidance to
(1) Determine basic parameters for defining the "human
environment", and the reasonable limits for analyses
of social, economic and all, secondary impacts.
(2) Determine, in conjunction with the development-6-f-,
guidance on program impact statements, general
guidance for determining the appropriateleSr.:eLof
analysis necessary for various types of EISs.
....................
(3) Focus EIS data needs and environmental analyses
on the particular environmental issues and
concerns of decisionmakers proposing an action,.
to insure in particular that EISs focus on
impacts and impacts of reasonable alternatives.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : GI2RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
(4) Make the EISs more manageable in scope and more
useful aids to decisionmaking by insuring that
all environmental conclusions expressed in an
EIS are supported by references to standard texts,
optional appendices, or by material within-the
statement or by supporting material that is
readily available to the public.
New research may be necessary for substantive guideline
development. CEQ is preparing a description and ranking
of NEPA research needs which will be updated periodically.
Because federal agencies have. made little effort to
conduct post-EIS analyses in order to improve their
EIS processes federal agencies should develop programs for
monitoring projects and programs previously analyzed in
EISs to determine the accuracy of predictions, and to improve
forecasting in future EISs. (An example of such a meaningful
effort by BLM is noted in Appendix E..)
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
1. Effect of NE-PA on State Governments
As part of its questionnaire to the states,
(Appendix B) to which27 states replied (see Table 12) CEQ
asked how the federal EIS process affected their decisions.
The response varied among the states and within the state
governments, ranging from considerable effects to none at
all. But by far the most common answer was that the EISs
were valuable to state decisionmakers. These judgments,
along with the few negative comments received, are quoted
LJ
in Append ix-.-.G--.
Similarly the most frequent state response to CEQ's
questionnaire was that the benefits of the EIS process to
decisionmaking outweighed the administrative burdens and
*J
uncertainties. This was noted even though states
generally receive no direct federal compensation for the time
and staff required to review and comment on federal EISs.
*,./ See, Appendix G.
**/ See Appendix H.
*** See Appendix i.
. 4X
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Table 12
States Responding to CEQ's Questionnaire and whether
they have State EIS procedures.
States
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Louisiana
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
New Jersey
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Whether EIS Requirements
Yes - legislative
Yes - legislative
Yes - special CZM projects
No
No, except in limited cases
Only for special FHWA purposes
No
No
No
Only for special Dept. of Roads proT
No
Yes - administrative
Yes legislative
South Carolina No
South For Release 2004/11/30: C 14t2DP7Jp4J6 aRJg80080019-3
Tennessee No
 105
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Table 12 (Con't)
Utah No
Vermont No
Virginia Yes - legislative
Washington Yes - legislative
Wi9donsin- Yes - legislative
Wyoming No
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO2660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Along with this belief that the EIS process is
generally beneficial, however, the states also believe that
the process can be more valuable to them if a number of
changes and improvements are made. One of the major
problems that the States have-no ted_ is that federal agencies
have not consistently used the existing system of State
Clearinghouses, established by Office of Management and
Budget Circular__1Y4._A-95,-to give states and local govern-
ments early warning of EIS actions. Noticesof intent to
prepare an EIS and lists of negative declarations have not
,been sent to these clearinghouses, making early state or
local participation in the 2IS process extremely difficult.
Frequently this ack of an early wa g__-
3ystem has
meant that state and local government may only participate
in the process after a draft EIS has been Prepared. Even
this participation, however, has been made. unnecessarily dif-
ficult and time-consuming when federal agencies have only
sent EISs to their counterpart state agencies and not, as
recommended in Appendix IV of CEQ guidelines, to the A-95
clearninghouse as well.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-P78M02660R000800080019-3
States also stressed the need for EISs to be manageable
in size, focussing on issues meaningful and important to
decisionmakers and the general public. The complaint was
frequent that the quality and format of EISs varied con-
siderably among theagencies, and that individual agency
definitions of terms important to the EIS process such as the
"human" environment, and "significant" impacts often seemed
to be inconsistent.
Finally, states generally shared a strong concern,
however, about the inadequate attention being given to their
EIS comments. States believed that these comments were
frequently religated to EIS appendices and that their
content was too readily dismissed in the light of different,
and allegedly more accurate, federal data.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 108
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Recommendations
Federal agencies shojld regularly and promptly send to
clearinghouses lists of negativ_e_ declarations and notices
of intent to prepare EISs. In addition, agencies should
send copies of all draft and final EISs to these clearing-
houses, whether or not they also send copies to individual
state or local agencies.
Federal agencies should also reevaluate their pro-
cedures for responding to state and local government comments
on draft EISs and take steps to insure that specific issues
raised by'state are carefully considered and directly
answered in the:final EIS.
CEQ has already made plans to work closely and regularly
with the states, through the National Governors Conference,
to help resolve specific problems of the EIS process and to
assess more general measures that might be-necessary to
improve the utility of the process to local and state as
well as federal decisionmakers.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR060800080019-3
 109
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
J. Public Involvement
Public involvement in the EIS process is difficult
to measure accurately for several reasons. It is difficult
to generalize about the "public." In fact, the "public" includes
a number of different groups, from chambers of commerce
to national environmental organizations. The conclusions below,
however, reflect general conclusions based on CEQ's agency
NEPA review:
All the agencies with major NEPA responsibilities seek
some degree of public involvement prior to and
during the preparation of the draft EIS;
? Most agencies routinely send copies of EISs to
state clearinghouses and to well-known national
environmental organizations; additional copies
are usually sent to state or local agencies
depending on the nature of the project;
All agencies distribute EISs free of charge;
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
? The agencies normally make sufficient numbers of
the EIS available; the amount is typically determined
by the size of the pm ject and the potential
public interest;
? All agencies have made some attempt to integrate
public hearings with the NEPA process. The
agencies typically use the public contribution
from such meetings in the EIS and in the decision-
making process;
? The agencies have held a number of public hearings,
workshops, or public meetings on draft EISs in
FY 1974..
It was not possible from the agency information sought and
received to measure the effectiveness of agency efforts to
involve the public in the EIS process. How various public
interests use the EIS process, the extent to which the public
hearings or meetings are effective avenues of communication
and how citizen groups can become more helpfully involved in
federal decisionmaking can only be answered after further study.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 111
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
CEQ found that federal agencies have numerous questions
about the extent of material wanted by public interest groups
and required for full public disclosure under NEPA. Several
agencies, believed that some environmental groups often
seemed to want more information than was possible or
necessary for an informed agency decision. The Corps of
Engineers has, in fact, advocated a summary EIS to serve'the
purposes of public information, with detailed appendices
available on request. The existence of any serious conflict
between the EIS as an aid to decisionmaking and as a full
disclosure of information to the public needs further analysis
and comment by business labors and environmental groups.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78M02660R0b0800080019-3
 112
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Recommendations
CEQ did not seek or receive from the agencies an evaluaticn
of whether meaningful public participation in the NEPA process
actually occurs. For that CEQ should seek information
directly from representatives of the public in one or
more public hearings and informal meetings with citizen
leaders. CEQ should also help develop research programs
to evaluate public participation in the EIS process.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Questionnaires on NEPA Litigation Sent to all Federal Agencies
TURN TO: Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
FORM A
UNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
2 JACKSON PLACE, N.W.
SHINGTON, D.C. 20006
NEPA LITIGATION REPORT:
CASES TERMINATED AS OF JUNE 30, 1975
See Attached Instructions
NAME OF CASE (as stated in state or federal reporters, or first named plaintiff
and defendant)
FEDERAL*AGENCY OR AGENCIES INVOLVED AS NAMED PARTIES (Include the agency of an
agency official who is the named party. Put asterisk next to agency filling out
this form)
COURT(S) (by district, circuit, or otherwise,
all state and federal courts involved)
DOCKET NUMBER(S)
DESCRIPTION OR NAME OF ACTION CHALLENGED:
NEPA ISSUE(S): a) NO EIS
b) INADEQUATE EIS
1) PROCEDURAL DEFECT(S)
2) DEFECT (S) IN CONTENT
c) SUBSTANTIVE CHALLENGE TO FEDERAL ACTION UNDER NEPA
d) OTHER PROCEDURAL NEPA ISSUE(S) t
SPECIFY
FINAL DISPOSITION OF NEPA ISSUE(S)
(Identify issue(s) from Item 7 above and mark next to appropriate category. See
instructions.)
DISMISSED SETTLED DECISION ON MERITS (For P For D
OTHER (Specify:
CASE DECIDED ON NON-NEPA ISSUES (Specify:
NATURE OF RELIEF GRANTED OR SETTLEMENT BY PARTIES:
(Mark S (Settlement), TC (Trial Court), CA (Appeals Court), SC (Supreme Court),
next to appropriate item. See instructions.)
PREPARATION OF EIS REVISION OF EIS
OTHER AGENCY ACTION UNDER NEPA (Specify: )
INJUNCTION (If so, describe each injunction granted, its duration, note
whether or not it was issued on the basis of NEPA, and name courts;
`which issued'gr modified it:
 CEQ Review of Implementation of the National Env'.:orrnental
Policy ?ct Questions and u
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDg- ~~8bz66ID008D6i'hB&--3
1. General Questions.
Numbers of EIS Prepared and Tigre Required
1.01 How many EIS's does your agency now estimate that
it will prepare and help prepare in.: Y 75 and ET 76.
Please specify in terms of your own working sub-
--~- stantive categories, such as agricultural production,
communications, energy-related projects, healt~.j' regula
tions, international Projects, pollution regulation,
public buildings, public land management, researc
and devel of ent-r transcor ratio . uraan...deve I Arent,
water resources. Please z::ecify the bureaus cr
units of: the agency Tom'{ a _r tc ce invc ..~i
1.02 For each. Categc=1 s e Vied above 3 ...,,. e
how Long, on. the avenge, foes ycu. acencLr estimate-
it. will, t3:-.e to mr=aa . a S--
2ncs t:` o T. to _C3 ;' _fC release 75 Q v'
Please specify - _ange-s. as we=' as averages_
COSt.. Of NEPA Process
1.03 Has- you= agency developed a :weans of deter rzin in g
Y~PA-related costs? if so, please describe briefly
the system of cost determination that is used.
and cost for preparing and circulating draft EIS's
in FY 74? Please specify for each bureau or sub-
unit of the agency.' What are the estimates for
FY 75? Howe are these costs di prided between in-
house work and work by independent contractors.
Please specify how these yr PA-related costs have
been separated from other agency planning, admin-
istrative or decisionmaking processes.
1.05 In FY 74, what was the cost, and level of staff
Commitment in Washington and in the regions . or
review and commenting on other agencies' EIS`s.
1.04 what was the approx.i:-mate level of staff comm
t.Ment
4 -
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Lead and Joint Agency EM' s
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
L.06 What experience, including both benefits and
problems, has the agency had with the EIS "lead
agency? concept either as a participant or as
the lead agency?
into the EIS?
1.07 Has participation been limited to the submission
of data to the lead agency or has it included
analysis and written material for incororatien
the agency using or pLazuning to use to = rov:.de More
accurate and usef 1 : s and izetroved ?ederaL ;.OlannLn
1.08 What kind of nter agency p lannmechani srx
L.09 To .what extent has your agency p ar -ci'Mated i n.
101oint statements" with other agencies cover--g
similar. Cr related agency' act=errs a-fec~=.;crF ..e
p
same roi ect?
ETS ana? vs4 s of Cunsc.:lrnt;cr_ and Enercv ut:eLr
I-10 To what e: to n t has the agency sought to analyze the
effects.. of a' non-energy developme nt procosa? an
energy consumption. and/or on ens gy supp?y, (a) in
the preparation of EIS' s and (b) in the rev ew of
EIS's?
1.11 Does the agency have, or is it planning to develop,
guidelines or procedures providing for such analyses
in EIS preparation and review?
EIS Analysis o f TnfIationarv incac t
L.L2.What. effort has the agency made or contemplated. making.
to assess the inflationary impact of a given proposal
in the EIS?
2. Use of NEPA in -the Agencv Decisi onmakinq Process
2.01 What documents are used by the agency to present environ-
mental analyses to decisionrnakers; the EIS itself,
executive summaries, decision memoranda?
2.02 Please describe the. influence of the EIS on your
agency's decisibnmaking process. please use
as appau verb ll *kasCZW41dAp gR BN Q 80000019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
3. Policy and Program EIS' s
3.01 Do your agency's NEPA procedures recognize various levels,
or a hierarchy of EIS's?
3.02 Has the agency developed procedures to integrate various
projects or programs, either on the basis of geographical
areas or common environmental problems, into policy or
program _EIS's in ways that might reduce the number,
or redefine the scope of individual project statements
that would otherwise be filed by the agency? What
EIS's of these types are being contemplated for rI
75 and rY 76?
3.03 Have policy or program EIS's served, or how do you
envisage that they might serve, a different purpose
from project EIS's -in the decisionmaking process?
3.04 What steps are being taken to develop prcced=al
and substantive guidelines for the delineation and
writing of policy or program EIS~s?
3.05 Does the agency use the policy or program. EIS (1) to
help assess alternatives, (2) to help assess cumulative
effects of similar or otherwise related projects involving
one or more agencies, (3) to serve as guides to subse-
quent project-level EIS' s , _'vr-`(4)- to serve several or
all. of such purposes?
3.06 Is there a backlog of pre-Jan. 1, 1970 projects, or
other large group of pending projects, for which EIS's
have not been prepared? If so has the agency considered
whether or not it would be appropriate to prepare con-
s program EIS's for such projects?
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
4
4. EIS- Content and Cual ty
use of Anmlicant information
4.01 Does the agency have, or is it ---- =-- --- '
planning to develop,
requirements for detailed environmental reports
to. be submitted by applicants nor mernits or
licenses or insurance which are used in p revaration
of EIS?
4.02 How are such reports integrated by the agency
into the agency planning/decisior-making structure?
4.03 Does-your agency charge applicant fees to helm
meet the cost of -IS preparation?
4.04 Are such charges provided for by regulation?
4.05 Has the agency prepared
or initiated preparation
of an EIS "prior to receipt of an app ication
for permits, licenses, or insurance.. Under
what circumstances has this been done?
Use of Contractor Information
4.06 Save independent contractors been used for EIS
preparation?
4.07 What is the relationship between such contractors
and the agency staff in the preparation process?
Expertise within the Agencv
4.08" What expertise is most needed in the, agency in
preparing EIS' s?
4.09 What steps have been taken to obtain such expertise
for use in the YEPA process? What new employees
were added for YEPA purposes in FY 74? What employee
training programs has the agency run for YEPA
purposes in FY 74? Please describe briefly the
extent and nature of these programs.
4'010 Whit use has your agency made of interdisciplinary
teams and to Approved For Rd ease ~ t 8 h 9 6 8 o 8 1 % $ ?
, s
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO2660R0008000$0019-3
Pre-Drat E:S Circulation
4.11a Does your agency usually obtain the views of
other agencies on the en,r ronmental analysis
of a proposed project prior to your formal filing
of a draft EIS?
,4.12 Is a "preliminary" draft EIS often circulated to
other agencies of special expertise and the public
to elicit such comments? Please give'examcTe
Substant417s Guideline veve? crmen t
CM3 What efforts. has your agency made to
- Cost-3enefit AnaLvsis
4~f What projects has the agency: under y,. or -Zanned,.
-to , deve?l' op general ruethcds fc_ i handnnoo a o . o
general rssearc,a is e_nvirormental impact, analysis?
Please' I_st all. such'-
uch specific projects or studies
and publications descriB g~ brieflyythei.r
score, funding and expected date of ccrmletion_
stantive met-%cds and guidelines directly
to .the env rcn en to 1 Lm": ac t: anal'ysis?
4:15 Does the agency prepare economic benefit-cost
analyses for projects subject to E IS' s ? .;re such
analyses included in the EIS? if not, why not?
develop sub-
4 .16 Do benefit-cost. analyses employed by the agency
i
n
or in addzteon.to, the EIS reflect the reduction
or. elimi m ticn. of benefits.. provided by
the existi ng
,
ecosystem,. such as fish and wildlife, recreation
or open space or by other social amenities?
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/308- CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Project uonitorin:
4.19 What efforts has the agency made to monitor projects
t on which an EIS has been written (a) to ensure that
any conditions for the project or mitigation measures
described in the EIS were actually followed up;
(b) to determine whether the analysis and forecasts
of the EIS were accurate and helpful; and (c) to
improve subsequent environmental analyses of a
similar kind? -
Vii. Review and Commenting Process on EIS's for Other a ercies
S.OL Dees your acency have formal or informal policies and
*,~ a~., d c ..n ~mrsen~+
criteria and per.. r t' for ~.~ '"_A taupe ` -~g?
If so, please provide the Council - i h a description o
sucIz calicies and- cr.teria_
5.02 Sow dces vcur agency- seek to invoke its jurisdictional.
and scecial ex^ertise ,escor_sibi_=ties is the EIS
commenting = rocess? :
5.03 Does your agency usually inform the initiating agency
of' the nature of any substantive criticisms of a draft.
or final. EIS prior to your formal submission of your
EIS comments?
5.04 What procedures, if any, exist for following-up the.
preparing agency's response in the final EIS? is your
agency consistently receiving such final EIS's?
5.05 What prbportion cf comments. are prepared at field level
and in'Washington? If comments are prepared at the field
level under what circumstances does review or consolidation
occur at the Washington level?
5.06 What skill level and kind: of expertise is required" and
devoted to agency review and commenting efforts?
5.07 What is the agency policy regarding requests from other
agencies and from the public for extension of the commenting
time on draft EIS's? Please specify the instances in
which the agency-granted more than 45 days for comment
on Appff cy Ieasa320l?#/3'teal~tcf~l9~-FaDP7`@~ Ol bO?8( 1ge y-3pe Witted
more than a 30-day delay in taking final action after
Qaitane-a enc. m 4 ;na1 ^TC
 7
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
5.09 Are the review criteria for draft and final, statements
similar? If not what are the differences?
6.Public involvement
6.01 To what extent has the. agency sought advance citizen
involvement in planning for and preparing of draft
or final EIS' s before the formal release of the EIS?
6.02 To which public organizations or individuals are your
draft EIS's routinely or automatically distributed for
comment?
6.03 What procedure does your agency follow in publicizing
the availability of draft Eis 's for comment?
6.04 Are your EIS's mailed to citizen groups at the same
time as they are mailed to CEQ and other Federal
agencies?
6.05 Are copies of SIS's distributed free of charge? If not,
for Whom and/or under what canditions are charges. made-:-.
6.06. Eaw many free- EIS' s are normally available- from the
agency for public distribution?
6.07 What has the agency done to integrate public hearing
procedures with the YEPA process?
6.08 What formal public hearings, workshops or public meetings
has the agency held during FY 74 on draft EIS's after
their issuance?
Approved For Release. 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 CEQ Questionnaire for states on the Federal Process
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
1. State Assistance in Preparing Federal EIS's
101. For what type of projects
(i.e. roads, airports,
dams, nuclear power plant construction, etc.)
has the state helped prepare EIS's for federal
agencies?
102. How many Federal EIS's did the state help prepare
in FY 1974? Please specify by type of project.
How many are estimated for FY 1975?
103. What kind of assistance has been provided -(sub-
mission of data or analysis and written material)?
104. What state agency is responsible for organizing
state help in the pre,-pa-ration of Federal E7-S's?
105. Has the state used independent antractcrs in
assisting with the preparation of Federal. EIS's?
If so,:.
(a) What percent of work, is done by the
? -contractor as compared to the work done
by the internal staff?
(b)-` What kind of work -is- done -by the contractor
collection/submission of data, prepar--
?ation of report, etc.)?
_ 106._._. in FY 1974J., what was the cost of assisting in
the preparation-of .? Federal EIS's? Please specify whether actual or estimated. What was the cost
for internal staff, external contractor fees,
houzs expended ?
and other costs directly related to the prepara--
tion of EIS's? What were the number of staff-
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 10?.Appr at is e 2e0seimate cRos~8 and number of staf-c!
hours involved in the preparation of Federal
EIS's in FY 1975?
2. State Review of Federal EIS's
201. To what extent does the state review and torment
on Federal EIS's affecting the state: always,
sometimes, rarely?
202. Does the state have a ?form al or informa 1 process
? for the review of 'Federal EIS's? If so, please "
explain this process briefly.-
review process and the state comments when more
than one state agency reviews the Federal ET-S?
Please explain..
203. Is there a state mechanism to coordira to the
204.
(a) Cost in dollars..
(b) Number of staff required. ?
In FY 1974, what was the cost: o j! review-fn
EIS's? Please specify whether actual or estimated
and . ir'. terms of:
(c) Staff-hours-ex-
pended.
ana corament:ing process for Federal EIS's? Are
z?S's reviewed by the state only when time is
206.
. impacts are involved?
available'or when certain kinds of projects or
Does the state follow-up on final EIS.'s to deter-
mine whether state comments were incorporated into
the statement?
207. What areas of particular weakness does the state
agency find in Federal EI,P's (i.e. content, type
of analysis, attention to'' comments from other
agencies, etc.)?
Approved For Release 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
205. What priority is given by the state to the r?l[f; Ac.i
 3
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
208. Does the state agency monitor or follow-up on
the project itself to determine whether the EIS
was accurate and the extent to which any mitigating
measures are being or could be employed? If so,
please give examples.
3. Use of Federal EIS's in State Procedures and Decisions.
301. To what extent does the state use the Federal
draft or final EIS in its decisionmaking process?
Please give examples.
302. Eow might the content ofathe EIS or the EIS
process improve in order to make the document
..More useful in the state decision*na'king prcces
303. Does the state require the preparation of envron-
mental impact statements or reports on major
state actions? if so, how has the state EIS
process related to the Federal ElS process?
304. How 'might the state and Federal EIS process be
Integra ted and made more complementary?
4. Overall comments and Suggestions on Ways to. Improve EIS' Prot.
401.' Please comment on:
(a} The beneficial and advers6 effects of he
Federal EIS process on state policies and
programs;
(b)The constraints of the state on its participation
(i.e. time, money, personnel,. expertise, data,
Changes or additions needed in specific provision
of NEPA, the state environmental policy act, or
the CEQ Guidelines; and
The benefits and costs of ?EPA and the EIS
process generally. ti
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 COUNCIL ON E NVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACEAi bved For Release 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
NEPA LITIGATION REPORT:
CASES PENDING AS OF JUNE 30, 1975
See Attached Instructions
NAME OF CASE (as stated in state or federal reporters, or first named plaintiff
and defendant)
FEDERAL AGENCY OR AGENCIES INVOLVED AS NAMED PARTIES (Iixdi.ude the agency of an
agency official who is the named party. Put asterisk next to agency filling
out this form.)
COURT(S) (by district, circuit, or otherwise, all
state and federal courts im- volved)
5.
DOCKET NUMBER(S)
7.
NEPA ISSUE(S):
a)
NO SPECIFIC NEPA ISSUE ALLEGED
b)
NO EIS
c)
INADEQUATE EIS
PROCEDURAL DEFECT(S)
DEFECT (S) IN CONTENT
d) SUBSTANTIVE CHALLENGE TO FEDERAL ACTION UNDER NEPA
e) OTHER PROCEDURAL NEPA ISSUE (S)
8. PRESENT DISPOSITION OF NEPA ISSUE(S):
(Identify issue(s) from Item 7 above and mark next to appropriate category.
See instructions.)
a) IN TRIAL COURT: DISMISSED SETTLED DECISION PENDING
DECISION ON MERITS (For P For D ) OTHER:
(SPECIFY)
CASE DECIDED ON NON-NEPA ISSUES (Specify:
b) ON APPEAL: INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL (Describe:
NO APPEAL DECISION PENDING AFFIBMED REVERSED
REMANDED OTHER (Specify:
9. NATURE OF RELIEF GRANTED OR SETTLEMENT BY PARTIES: (Mark S (Settlement), TC' (Trial
Court), CA (Appeals Court), SC (Supreme Court), next to a,ppropriate item. See
instructions.)
PREPARATION OF EIS REVISION OF EIS OTHER AGENCY ACTION
UNDER NEPA (Specify:
INJUNCTION (If so, describe each injunction"granted., its duration, note
whether or not it was issued on the basis of NEPA, and name
court(s) which issued or modified it:
Approvecl or a ease - -
10. NAME, TITLE AND PHONE NUMBER OF PERSON FILLING OUT THIS .BEORM:
 Txu~r
Approved For Release 2004/1 RFEWE 8M02660R000800080019-3
Please fill out FORM B for each case pending judicial review at any level as of
June 30, 1975 in which your agency is a named party and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) is an issue.2 Use the reverse side of the form if additional space
is needed.
NOTE: If questions or difficulty arise in filling out this form, please contact
Ms. Heather Coleman at (202) 382-7061.
Items 1-4: Self-explanatory
Item 5: Include court docket numbers for each level of review
Item 6: Briefly describe or state name of Federal action challenged
Item 7: Check each applicable issue:
a) includes cases in which it is not yet possible to determine what
specific NEPA issue is involved. For example, a generalized NEPA
allegation is made in the complaint, challenging an action to which
NEPA may apply, however no further action has been taken yet in the
case.
b) includes cases in which no environmental impact statement was filed
because of a threshold agency decision that the action was not a
"major" action, "significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment", as well as those in which the "federal" nature of the
action is at issue.
c) 1) includes cases in which errors were alleged in the procedures
surrounding the preparation of the impact statement (such as improper
delegation of the preparation of the statement).
2) includes cases in which the impact statement prepared by the
agency was challenged for failure to include or adequately discuss
issues, alternatives or impacts, as required by section 102(2)(C)
of NEPA.
d) includes cases in which it was alleged that the Federal agency
decision or action itself was arbitrary and capricious, or clearly
gave insufficient weight to environmental values, in violation of
the substantive duties created by NEPA (in sections other than
5102(2)(C)).
e) includes cases in which errors of procedure under NEPA were alleged,
other than those described in b) 1) above.
Item 8: Mark the disposition of each NEPA issue checked above in Item 7 as of
June 30, 1975 by writing the identifying letter (and number where
necessary) of the issue next to the appropriate item. For example, if
no EIS was prepared and the trial court dismissed NEPA issue a) (see
Item 7), mark a) next to DISMISSED, under IN TRIAL COURT.
lInclude cases in which an agency official, acting,in his/her official'
capacity, is the named party.:.
2You may 4fai?ELtlgflpripreoi' 2QR4/W?R :a (iA pZ?k fifipR0q~8gg0l%gl iiicanu
or frivolous.
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
If a petition for writ of certiorari has been filed in the U.S. Supreme
Court, so indicate and note the issue(s) raised under 8(b) OTHER.
DISMISSED refers to issues which were dismissed by the court without a
trial or hearing on the merits.
SETTLED refers to issues for which the parties reached an agreement
without a judicial decision on the merits (including a consent judgment
approved by the court), issues which were withdrawn, and issues that
were rendered inactive or moot because of unilateral action by a party
(i.e., the federal agency voluntarily prepared an EIS).
DECISION PENDING refers to issues which are awaiting judicial review in any
court, or where the time for filing an appeal has not yet lapsed.
DECISION ON MERITS refers to issues for which the court made a judgment
after consideration of the arguments of the parties in a trial or hearing
on the merits of the case.
OTHER: Briefly describe any other final disposition of a NEPA issue
which cannot be accurately included in the previous categories.
CASE DECIDED ON NON-NEPA ISSUES: Briefly specify any other authority
relied upon by the court in its decision if the NEPA issues checked in
Item 7 were withdrawn, settled, dismissed or otherwise held inapplicable
to the case, or if the court determined that the Federal agency or
agencies involved had satisfied the requirements Hof NEPA.
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL refers to issues for which an appeal may have been
taken on an issue decided by the trial court, pending a decision by the
trial court on the remainder of the case.
NO APPEAL: Self-explanatory
AFFIRMED: Self-explanatory
REVERSED: Self-explanatory
REMANDED: Self-explanatory
Item 9: Mark S (for settlement by the parties, see definition of SETTLED in Item 8
above), TC'(for relief granted by the trial court), CA (for relief granted
by an appeals court), Sc (for relief granted by the Supreme Court), next to
the appropriate item. if relief granted by the trial court was affirmed on
appeal, mark both TC and CA next to the item. If the relief granted was
reversed or vacated on appeal, mark an asterisk (*) next to TC. Follow the
same procedure for further appeals. For example, if the TC ordered that an
EIS be prepared, the CA vacated the order, and the SC reinstated it, mark
TC*/SC next to PREPARATION OF EIS. If the relief was modified on appeal,
but the modification did not change the essential nature of the relief (i.e.
the EIS was ordered to be revised by the court, but in different respects),
mark each court next to the appropriate category ji.e. TC/CA next to REVISION
OF EIS).
Describe each injunction issued in the case, whether or not based on NEPA,
noting briefly the legal basis of the injunction.. Please include precise
information on what action was enjoined and the dates on which the injunction
was issued and dissolved, even if the injunction: was subsequently vacated or
reversed: Name each court which issued or modified-the injunction.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
Item 10: Self-explanatory
 Approved For Release 20Rfi/y_cTZ_or/s_DP78MO266OR000800080019-3
Please fill out FORM A for each case terminated) as of June 30, 1975 in which your
agency was a named party' and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was an issue.3
A report form should be completed even if the case was dismissed, settled, or otherwise
terminated without a judicial decision on the merits. Use the reverse side of the form
if additional space is needed.
NOTE: If questions or difficulty arise in filling out this form, please contact
Ms. Heather Coleman at [phone].
Items 1-4: Self-explanatory
Item 5: Include court docket numbers for each level of review
Item 6: Briefly describe or state name of Federal action challenged
Item 7: Check each applicable issue:
a) includes cases in which no environmental impact statement was filed
because of a threshold agency decision that the action was not a
"major" action, "significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment", as well as those in which the "federal" nature of the
action is at issue.
b) 1) includes cases in which errors were alleged in the procedures
surrounding the preparation of the impact statement (such as improper
delegation of the preparation of the statement).
2) includes cases in which the impact statement prepared by the
agency was challenged for failure to include or adequately discuss
issues, alternatives or impacts, as required by section 102(2)(C)
of NEPA.
c) includes cases in which it was alleged that the Federal agency
decision or action itself was arbitrary and capricious, or clearly
gave insufficient weight to environmental values, in violation of
the substantive duties created by NEPA (in sections other than
?102(2)(c)).
d) includes cases in which errors of procedure under NEPA were alleged,
other than those describe in b) 1) above.
Item 8: Mark the final disposition of each NEPA issue checked in Item 7 by writing
the identifying letter (and number where necessary) of the issue next to
the appropriate disposition item: i.e., if no EIS was prepared and the
trial court dismissed NEPA issue j without subsequent appeal, mark a) in
the space provided next to DISMISSED.
Where an issue was decided on the merits, mark the item 7 issue under
DECISION ON THE MERITS in the space provided next to the appropriate party
in whose favor the final decision was made after all review was completed.
DISMISSED refers to issues which were dismissed by the court without a
trial or hearing on the merits.
=Terminated means that all appeals or further review have been completed, or that
the time for filing of appeal or petition for certiorari has lapsed.
2Include cases in which an;.agency official, acting in his/her official capacity,
is the named partApproved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
3You may omit cases in which the NEPA allegation was insignificant or frivolous.
 -2-
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
SETTLED refers to issues for which the parties voluntarily reached
agreement without a judicial decision on the merits (including a consent
judgment approved by the court), issues which were withdrawn, and issues
that were rendered moot or inactive because of unilateral action by a
party (i.e. voluntary preparation of an EIS without a court order or
formal settlement).
DECISION ON MERITS refers to issues for which the court made a judgment
after consideration of the arguments of the parties in a trial or hearing
on the merits.
OTHER: Briefly describe any other final disposition of a NEPA issue
which cannot be accurately included in the previous categories.
CASE DECIDED ON NON-NEPA ISSUES: Briefly specify any other authority
relied upon by the court in its decision if the NEPA issues checked in
Item 7 were withdrawn, settled, dismissed or otherwise held inapplicable
to the case, or if the court determined that the Federal agency or
agencies involved had satisfied the requirements of NEPA.
Item 9: Mark S (for settlement by the parties; see definition of SETTLED in Item
8 above), TC (for relief granted by the trial court), CA (for relief granted
by an appeals court), SC (for relief granted by the Supreme Court), next to
the appropriate item. If relief granted by the trial court was affirmed on
appeal, mark both TC and CA next to the item. If the relief granted was
reversed or vacated on appeal, mark an asterisk (*) next to TC. Follow the
same procedure for further appeals. For example, if the TC ordered that
an EIS be prepared, the CA vacated the order, and the SC reinstated it,
mark TC*/SC next to PREPARATION OF EIS. If the relief was modified on
appeal, but the modification did not change the essential nature of the
relief (i.e. the EIS was ordered to be revised by the court, but in
different respects), mark each court next to the appropriate category (i.e.
TC/CA next to REVISION OF EIS).
Describe each injunction issued in the case, whether or not based on NEPA,
noting briefly the legal basis of the injunction. Please. include precise
information on what action was enjoined and the dates on which the injunction
was issued and dissolved, even if the injunction was subsequently vacated
or reversed. Name each court which issued or modified the injunction.
Item 10: Self-explanatory
**This report has been cleared in accordance with FPMR 101-11.1 and assigned interagency
Report Control Number 0071-CEQ-OT.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/1i W. DR70M0266OR000800080019-3
Examples of the Effect of the EIS Process on Federal
Decisions
Interior
Among the earliest effects of the EIS process'on
federal decisionmaking was the interior Department's
second draft and its final EIS on the 800 mile Trans-
Alaska Pipeline. Virtually all parties involved agree
that the intensive environmental review of this project
prompted important project design changes and other
improvements in routing and construction techniques.
Interior has successfully used NEPA and the EIS
process to influence its decisionmaking in numerous other
situations -- eliminating certain tracts from OCS leasing,
improving coal and oil shale operating regulations, and
prohibiting jet aircraft from intruding on Grand Teton
National Park.
Recently, Interior prepared a widely-respected EIS on
the proposed 8th annual 1974 mass motorcycle race of
150 miles across BLM lands from Barstow to Las Vegas.
Although BLM permitted that race it made an extensive
post race environmental analysis and, on the basis of
both analyses, it decided to reject the .proposed 9th
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR060800080019-3
 2
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
annual race of November 1975 because of the anticipated
environmental effects.
A final example within Interior-is its
EIS, prepared by BLM and the Forest Serviceon
proposed phosphate leasing on 25,000 acres of the Osceola
National Forest, in Florida, issued in final form in
May 1974. The EIS prompted a Secretarial decision in the
fall of 1975 to defer a leasing decision pending completion
of a two-year study of USGS. EPA had earlier recommended
to CEQ, pursuant to section 309 of the Clean Air Act, that
on the basis of facts and analyses presented in the EIS
no leasing be permitted. CEQ's own review had prompted
a similar recommendation to interior.
AEC
Two major radioactive waste disposal proposals of the
former Atomic Energy Commission
one at Lyons, Kansas,
and the other at the Savannah River in South Carolina
were abandoned because of uncertain environmental impacts
identified by AEC and public analyses conducted through
the agency's EIS process.
ERDA
In early 1975,-the Energy Research and Development
Administration, (one of the AEC's two successor agencies)
Ok
reviewed the criticisms of the AEC draft ppro ram bEI
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660~00080 08 0 ~9n3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
commercially-generated radioactive waste management, which
had concluded that surface storage facilities offered the
best interim solution. ERDA concluded that NEPA and the
public interest would best be served by another look at
the problem through a new program EIS and thus withdrew
its storage facility budget request.
NRC
The other AEC successor, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, used the AEC EIS on the breeder reactor and
its own on the plutonium recycle proposal as definitive
bases on which to develop stronger measures to safeguard
against the misuse of nuclear materials. Like the former
AEC, NRC's reactor licensing directorate has integrated
the EIS into its licensing decisionmaking process, and
as a result of this environmental work, has modified project
decisions in numerous cases.
Corps
The Corps of Engineers decided to drop or abandon work
on over a dozen proposed projects because its NEPA process --
not litigation -- revealed that significant environmental
damage would result. Eleven other projects have been stopped
until environmental analysis is complete. The Corps has also
modified or recommended for deauthorization many more projects
4 ..
due in large part to NEPA- and the EIS ream erne tt These
Approved For Release 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78M02660R0080$00'I
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
4
actions have resulted in widespread environmental benefits
which are real and substantial but cannot be tallied in
monetary terms.
DOT
Similarly, since 1970, DOT estimates that scores of major
highway and airport projects have been abandoned or changed
as a result of the EIS process and DOT's resulting capacity
and determination to avoid adverse effects. The decision of
Secretary Coleman to reject funding for the 1-66 extension
into Washington, D.C. is a recent example. it is difficult
to calculate the social benefits of such project decisions,
but. the resources saved were available to use for transportation
projects that proved more worthy of the taxpayer's money.
Within the Department of Defense, environmental impact
statements have influenced a number of project decisions
(in addition to those the Corps described above). For
example, the Air Force used the NEPA process at Eglin Air
Force Base to incorporate Federal, state, and local
recommendations into a military housing development and
preserve existing natural and cultural resources. Similarly,
`i.
the Navy changed the location of its Atlantic Combat
Maneuvering Range due to possible adverse environmental
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO2660R000800080019-3
effects. The Army has used the EIS process to affect a number
 r6W%*;~ k@lg s aA;4)/n11/''6Q4&-F &78M02660R000800080019-3
The EIS process has also affected projects of the
General Services Administration. For example, in 1974
the Kennedy Library Corporation proposed construction 01
Y
the Kennedy Library and museum just below Harvard Square.
GSA, which was to build and maintain the structure, issued
a draft EIS, which focussed on traffic,and other adverse
effects of the proposal. As a result of the draft EIS and
local controversy, the Library Corporation'decided against
the proposed. museum site and is now exami?iing several other
alternatives, while planning to keep the Kennedy archives
on Harvard University property.
SCS -
The environmental analysis, of course, involves much
more than preparation of a draft or a final document. For
many agencies, such as the Sail-Conservation Service of the
Department of Agriculture, the major influence of section
102(2)(C) is felt long before a draft is prepared, when
the agency conducts environmental assessments, partly to)
determine whether an EIS is necessary. The SCS has
successfully used preliminary draft EIS's to broaden the
scope of project alternatives, particularly those involving
nonstructural measures.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 6
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
HUD
The Department of Housing and Urban Development
carried out its own NEPA review, noting the effect of
pre-EIS environmental analysis on HUD decisionmaking
in over 150 situations. HUD reported that "envirorruental
impact assessment procedures have_led_to the elimination
of projects with adverse environmental impacts prior to
formal (EIS) processing. All regions report that developers
are much more aware of environmental quality and that [as
a' result] proposed sites are often environmentally more
_/
sound
NPS , FS
Over the past several years the NEPA process has had
an increasingly important effect on the extensive land
use planning efforts of both the National Park Service
and the Forest Service. Environmental" assessments and
statements have been used routinely by both agencies to
evaluate and present to decisionmakers the impacts of
various plans and alternatives for the use of national
parks and forests.
Perhaps the most far-reaching use of the EIS process
has been the work of the Forest Service to develop a long-
range program for forest lands pursuant to the Resources
Plannit p5?c~d F2r leas ' Ag 11/30 CI - Part Of its program development,
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : C1A7RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
the Forest Service is preparing an EIS on its proposed
program, including an assessment of alternative programs.
A document outlining possible alternative program goals
resulted in substantial agency and public comment in the
spring of 1975. The draft EIS addressed the alternative
programs that best reflected public and other agency
perceptions of realistic program choices. After circulation
of the draft. statement and evaluation of comments on it,
the Forest Service plans to submit its final program
recommendations'to the Congress in. December 1975.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MA2660R000800080019-3
 R~5~0~4,:~tA~~~2F~d40890?8019-3
NATIONAL PAR.`, SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
IN *XPLY R2PER TO:
L7615-MQ
July' 11, 1975
To: All Regional Directors; Director, National Capital Parks;
and Manager, Denver Service Center
From:' Director,
Subject: NEPA: A Ianagement Tool
In January of this year, the National Environmental Policy Act was
,5 years old. For the past 3 years, the Service has made an all-out
effort to comply with both the spirit and intent of the act and in so
doing has developed what I believe to be a strong management tool.
Most of the objectives NEPA is designed to meet are the same objectives
the Service has been meeting for years. Other than the requirement
that we prepare an environmental impact: statement, under certain
conditions, the process NEPA calls for is the sama process we uce in
our decisionmaking; NEPA has simply strengthened and structured that.
process. I would like to. outline the major benefits I see accruing
from NEPA implementation..
Managers at all levels can now make better informed decisions.
Resource data and comprehensive' analysis of this information by staff
persons clearly lay out the advantages and disadvantages of a particular
course of action. The manager gets staff work which focuses on decisions
he must make; he in turn can make decisions which 2rotect and enhance
park resources.
Public participation also plays an important role in this decisionmaking
process. Through our :EPA procedures,'we are able to gain public involve-
ment at important'decisionmaking steps--objective, alternative, and plan
stages. By involving the public, we are able to assess more completely
their needs, feelings about issues, and, of course, obtain information
from experts in the field. Similarly, by involving other agencies,
Federal, State, and local, we are able to integrate our plans and
projects with theirs and benefit from their expert knowledge. In these
times of fiscal restraints, we also ensure that ve are not duplicating
.services provided by others and thus spendin~.funds unnecessarily.
Finally, NEPA has sharpened our planning process. It has become more
systematic, comprehensive, and provides an umbrella or structure for a
Approved For. Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R6008Q0080019-3
 . Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
myriad of management actions we must take daily. Lon- term, this
comprehensive planning will reduce costs, minimize labor requirements
for operation and maintenance of facilities, and aid us in mitigating
our adverse actions as well as provide us with a system for monitoring
our past decisions.
Since the passage of NEPk, the Service has prepared 185 environmental
statements on actions ranging from park master plans to specific
projects. In. most cases, these statements have been very useful tools
in helping us reach our objectives. I'm convinced that in the future
if we use NEPA as a decisionmaking management tool rather than thinking
of it as a nemesis, our decisions will be of greater benefit to the
resources we manage and the public we serve. I am committed to NEPA
compliance and expect all organizational units and managers to fully
comply to the spirit and intent of the act.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3,
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
APPENDIX F PD-63
August 1. 197/5
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
It is AID policy:
to assist in strengthening the indigenous capa-
bilities of developincr countries to appreciate and
evaluate the potentia environmental effects of
proposed development strategies and projects, and
to select, implement and manage effective environ-
mental protection measures, and
to ensure that the environmental conse uences of
proposed AID-finance activities are i entltie
and considered by AID in collaboration with the
counter prior to a Lina decision to proceed,
and that appropriate environmental safeguards are
adopted. 1/
This policy reflects AID's recognition of the responsibility
incumbent on all agencies of the U.S. Government to conduct
their operations in a. manner that mitigates or-avoids any
potential short- or long-term deleterious environmental
effects of local, regional or global proportions. It also
derives from the opportunity to make a special contribution
in an area of increasing concern to developing countries,
and the world in general, by virtue of the unique scientific
and managerial expertise the United States has developed to
deal with environmental problems.
1/
Virtually all AID activities concerned with raising
basic living.standards can be considered "environ-
mental" in a positive sense. However, this and sub-
sequent references to AID's "environmental policy"
refer specifically to those precepts, procedures,
programs and actions which, by deliberate design, seek
to. improve or protect the quality of air, water and
land resources by: (1) eliminating or mitigating
undesirable effects of development projects or commo-
dities financed under the Foreign Assistance Act
through better.. program planning and review; and (2)
building and strengthening the indigenous capabilities.
of developing countries to identify, assess and prevent
environmental degradation through programs of edu-
cation, training,-research, and technical advisory
services.
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
AID's environmental policy conforms with concepts embodied
in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. That
Act establishes, as national policy, that the United States
will "promote efforts which will prevent damage to the
environment and biosphere, and stimulate the health and
welfare of man," and calls upon all agencies of the Federal
Government to,review programs and procedures with "parti-
cular reference to their effect on the environment and on
the conservation, development and utilization of natural
resources." It further directs all government agencies to:
"recognize the worldwide and long-range character of
environmental problems, and where consistent with the
foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate
support to initiatives, resolutions and programs
designed to maximize cooperation in anticipating and
'
s
preventing a decline in the quality of mankind
world environment....."
It is AID policy to seek consistently to further these
the framework of the
bilateral development assistance program -- recognizing
that the sovereignty of developing countries as well as
their differing priorities, stages of development, cultural
and social values-, environmental concerns, and sensitivity
to external efforts to influence their national development
plans- make this a difficult and delicate task.
Despite these potential constraints, provision of U.S.
bilateral assistance involves decisions by AID which must
be taken with full cognizance of all associated costs and
benefits (including environmentalT AID asserts that
quality-of-life improvements in the developing world can
be realized and sustained only by the acceptance of the
principle that environmental planning must be an integral
component of national development plans and programs. Con-
servation of renewable resources and prevention of harmful
environmental effects can often be achieved-if incorporated
early in the design of overall development strategies and
projects. In other cases, negative effects may be unavoid-
able and, therefore, require difficult choices which should
be made on the basis of a clear recognition and analysis
of alternative pathways toward the desired development
objective.
Approved for Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3 ,
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 :CIA-RDP78M02660R000800089-b33
It is AID policy to seek close collaboration with recipient
developing countries in carrying out its environmental
.responsibilities. In the larger sense, worldwide environ-
mental goals will be achieved only with the willingness and
ability of the developing countries to assume the respon-
sibility for anticipating potential effects, carrying out
sound planning and project design, and managing and moni-
toring the activities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT POLICY
It is AID policy to assess systematically every proposed new
development activity at the earliest possible stage for
significant potential environmental effects, and to prepare
a detailed environmental assessment in each case where sig-
nificant effects are probable. "Activities" to be assessed
include capital development projects (e.g., construction of
roads, irrigation systems, ports), technical advisory
services, training and education programs, research, and
commodity procurement.
In the case of AID activities which are either carried out
within or focused on specific LDCs, environmental assess-
ments-will be conductee by qualified experts in and, with the
direct participation of host government institutions when-
ever possible. Consultations will be held between AID staff
and the host government on the results and significance of
the completed assessments, and agreement reached on any
necessary modifications prior to final approval of the
proposed activities. In addition, AID will encourage and
assist, if possible, the host government to involve broad
elements of the country's citizens in the decision-making
process, particularly those potentially most affected by any
environmental effects. Subject to authorization by the host
government, AID will make the assessments available to
interested parties within the United States in advance of
final actions on the proposal.
Where the. proposed AID activity-is not "county -s ecific",
(e.g., research at a U.S. institution , or were it con
stitutes one of a class of activities (e.g., pesticides
procurement), a single environmental assessment will be
made in AID/Washington, circulated to AID's overseas
Missions and host governments for information, guidance
and comment, and made available within the U.S. to
interested parties.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
All) will assess and react to situations where the environ-
mental assessment indicates that potential effects may
extend beyond the -national-boundaries,-of:---the 'recipient:::
country. , .. en. adj acent foreign nations-.may`-be_-affected,
it is "AID policy--to- urge-the-country requesting :assistance
to consult with-its:neighbors.in''advance of=project-
develop-ment and.to.negotiate mutually acceptable=accommodations
which.will ::then -be - reflected- in--the-bilateral :'agreement
reached with-,AID
Where--an.assessment.indicates that a proposed activity
-~--would--signi?icantly--a#fect~the environment of areas outside
any nation's. territorial jurisdiction (e.g., the oceans),
or would` significantly affect'-. the-- environment- of, the----United
States;_-AID: will,_ subject" to- foreign- policy considerations,
comply . with: the-procedural requirements of Section = 102(2) (c)
of National- Environmental. Policy Act;= (as" ampli-fied by the
Guidelines #r - Federal-- Agencies- under the National= Environ-
menta olicy Act-, issued-by. the ounce on Environmental
Quality, revised may-1, _T_3-7.3) This--requires- preparation
of arr.'"environmental- impact"statement" and= its. circulation
for comment-within-the U.S. prior to any final project
decision.by the Agency.; The impact statement will also be
provided to Missions -ands LDCs- for- information= and. comment.
In some cases.,- A-15 -is', onl -one 7of -several donors for-. a:.' Z
particular-activity. everthen ss -,- it -is I. po-licy::to
factor -env considerations into -its own decision
on whe'tker;:t'o,--contribute& -to proposed multi-donor :activity.
When AT isi=the '(or a)- maryor -contributor, -toward: an, activity
which, ,uporr znztial examination, may cause- significant
environmental" -effects, -i-t- , ill take the lead in, ensuring,
that an environmental-assessment is-prepared, ideally
-through the. collaborative efforts- of the-principal.-donors.
When'AlD's potential-involvement is that of a minor contri-
butor, it will look to and encourage the major controlling
- -donor(s) to prepare a comprehensive assessment that meets
the needs of both AID and all-other- participating donor
institutions. If potential effects from such multi-donor
activities may significantly affect the United States or
areas outside national jurisdictions; environmental impact
statements will be submitted by AID as prescribed by-
Section-102(2)(c)-of the National Environmental Policy Act.
In every. instance, the assessments and impact statements
will be made available to all donors and the developing
countries involved.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3',,
 - 5 - PD-63
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
With respect to contributions to international institutions
and programs, environments assessments are required in
those cases where the financial commitment can be directly
related to a specific activity or program for which AID has
the unilateral right to control expenditures. However,
assessments are not prepared for core support to an inter-
national or regional body, or to an LDC intermediate credit
institution, when it is not possible to project and predict
the specific end uses of the funding. In the latter situa-
tion, AID will work with other donor agencies to develop
common and comprehensive policies, strategies, and proce-
dures for addressing the environmental aspects of develop-
ment, and with LDC governments to help build an environ-
mental consciousness and capability which they themselves
can then apply.
Foreign policy considerations, political sensitivities on
the part of recipient LDCs, restrictions on United States'
access to LDC data, and emergency situations may,. on
occasion, preclude or constrain AID's ability to carry out
a definitive environmental analysis. Situations may also
arise where a foreign government may request AID assistance
for a specific project, the design of which is already
committed. This obviously limits AID's ability or reason
to evaluate project alternatives. In such cases, AID's
final decision must be based on a less-than-optimal analysis,
and possibly limited to consideration of the environmental
benefits and costs of the only approach desired a priori by
the host country.
Regardless of difficulties, AID's policy is to conduct the
best environmental assessment possible -- consistent with
the type and overall scale of the activity being considered.
The assessments are to be comprehensive and include the
following components:
overview description and analysis of the proposed
activity.
probable significant environmental effects, both
beneficial and negative, along with their est-
mated magnitudes.
relationship of the activity to land-use policies,
plans and controls for the affected area(s).
Approved For Release'2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 f -
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
an expjusition and evaluation of the environmental
effects of reasonable alternatives, particularly
those that might enhance environmental quality or
avoid some or all of the adverse effects.
significant adverse effects which cannot be avoided.
anticipated trade-off potential for improving or
degrading man's environment (considering the local
short-term uses versus the maintenance and enhance-
ment of long-term productivity), and the extent to
which the activity forecloses possible future
options.
other interests and considerations of the United
States and the host country thought to offset any
adverse environmental effects.
When AID unilaterally considers that there is a reasonable
risk of significant adverse effects on the environment from
,an-activity proposed to it for support, and where. efforts to
encourage the incorporation of appropriate safeguards are
unsuccessful, AID reserves the prerogative of declining to
participate in the activity.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
While the international development assistance effort
collectively carried out by all multilateral and bilateral
donors is significant, it nevertheless supports only a small
fraction of the economic development activities conducted in
the developing world. Consequently, protecting the environ-
.ment of developing countries -- and, in turn, safeguarding
the'U.S. and the world environment from the potential threat
of increasing global pollution -- requires more than the
application of new environmental policies and procedures'by
official aid donors. Over the long-term, environmental
goals will be achieved only through the commitment, action
and-abilities of the developing countries themselves. It
is, therefore, AID policy to stimulate and assist cooperat-
ing.countries to develop the knowledge and institutional
capabilities necessary to address successfully the environ-
mental aspects of their national development programs.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 - 7 PD-63
Approved For Release 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
AID sponsorship of environmental activities responds to a
steadily growing demand by developing countries for U.S.
assistance in this area, and recognizes the fact that the
.U.S. is in an excellent position to make a significant and
!unique contribution to the international effort by virtue
of its past experience and existing capabilities. Also,
AID is the only U.S. agency authorized to provide concessional
technical assistance to developing countries on environmental
matters.
AID assistance in the environmental field both includes and
transcends the traditional focus of Agency programs, i.e.,
coping with the "pollution of poverty" by accelerating
economic and social development. It includes support for
activities which are principally designed to aid developing
countries to identify, assess and mitigate the undesirable
secondary impacts of traditional development projects on
human populations, land, air, water and other natural
resources. Priority is assigned to strengthening national
capabilities for identifying potential problems, establishing
new environmental policies, laws and. institutions, and cal-
culating the costs and benefits of alternative approaches
to protecting or rehabilitating the environment. Imple-
mentation involves financing of U.S. technical advisors;
provision of training for developing country policy makers
and managers; dissemination of information, and sponsorship
of research and demonstration projects designed to advance
the state-of-the-art for pollution control and environmental
management in the developing world.
AID recognizes a special responsibility for addressing the
undesirable secondary impacts associated with the develop-
ment activities it finances. Consequently, it is Agency
policy to apply routinely the technical expertise needed to
help evaluate potential problems associated with proposed
AID-financed projects, and to incorporate appropriate safe-
guards into project design. Further, high priority is
accorded to LDC requests for assistance to strengthen their
capabilities for monitoring and managing the environmental
aspects of those projects which are subsequently implemented.
AID is also receptive to LDC requests for U.S. assistance
to cope with important environmental problems unrelated to
specific AID projects.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
COOPERATION WITH INTERNATIONAL BODIES-
AID is committed to working with other international develop-
ment agencies to seek harmonization of policies, procedures
and guidelines for building environmental safeguards into
development activities.
Since the United States is the largest financial contributor
to the multilateral donors with mandates to conduct environ-
mental programs, AID will continue to join with the Depart-
ment of State and other U.S. agencies in helping design and
influence those programs. Special priority will be given
to cooperation with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
which has lead responsibility to develop a coordinated
international environmental program. AID is prepared to
consider specific LDC requests for bilateral assistance
channeled through the UNEP, UNDP and UN Specialized
Agencies.
COLLABORATION WITH THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY
It is AID policy to encourage participation of broad segments
of the U.S. public and private sectors in the design and
implementation of Agency environmental policies and programs.
In the conduct of its environmental-related analyses and
projects in developing countries, AID will seek to employ
the best U.S. talent available.
AID will also take steps- to improve-public-awareness of the
Agency's environmental policies, procedures and projects
and to increase opportunities for public input into environ-
mental policy formulation and strategy.
Daniel Parker
Administrator
DISTRIBUTIO1t :
AID List H, Position' 3'
All Mi r?ypO'ip1rftW 3S 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3.
 Approved For Release 200-4/'f1 ILIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
STATE RESPONSES TO CEQ NEPA QUESTIONNAIRE
ON THE USE OF FEDERAL EIS'S IN STATE PROCEDURES AND DECISIONS
A = Q 301 To what extent does the state use the Federal
draft or final EIS in its decisionmaking process?
Please give examples.
DELAWARE
A. "The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on proposed
increase in acreage to be offered for oil and gas leasing on the
Outer Continental Shelf opened a virtual Pandora's box of'poten-
tial problems and concerns which might potentially affect this
State. Consequently, an assortment of planning activities and
other mechanisms were created to help address these problems.
Although it is too early to actually identify any profound State
decisions which might be traced to this EIS, it is safe to say
that the genesis of any future decisions will be traced to this
document.
Generally, EIS is useful in controversial projects. It is
time consuming and wasteful for most minor projects (example
land drainage in areas affected by high water table)."
A. The environmental impact statement review process being the
only established means for State input on many proposed federal
actions or federally regulated activities is highly utilized
by the State for this purpose. The Governor and the Cabinet,
sitting as the Board of Natural Resources, utilize the State's
review of environmental impact statements as basis for decisions
on projects and proposals. State agencies primarily utilize
the review process as a basis for making decisions on
proposed actions. ..Regional planning agencies and local
governments utilize the environmental impact statement review
process in much the same manner as the State. Citizens
have an equal opportunity to review and comment on proposed
federal action through the process. On a few occasions, the
State has made substantive recommendations on environmental
impact statements which were accepted by Federal agencies
based on comments by` individuals.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30: CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 ;.2
From t 1Rep $#dEo R If-6%Pp 9 41,QO : f,46-RDPZ8Many 60og~0e8000?e0eral laws
have been as effective as the NEPA in providing ford environmental
protecticn. The success of NEPA in Florida has been a result
of the S~ate's straightforward efforts to protect its environ-
ment and the federal agencies' desires to carry out the intent
of the Act.
Prior to the NEPA and environmental impact statements, for the
most part, federal agencies were not required to assess the
environmental impact of their proposed actions. Consequently,
environmental protection was not necessarily a concern in
planning projects and programs and other federal activities.
More importantly, prior to the NEPA, no defined process existed
to effectively enable other federal agencies, state and local
governments and the public to become involved in the decision-
making on proposed federal actions. The NEPA rectified these
deficiencies.
The following are some types of results derived from the
process:
(1) Major public works projects for flood control,
drainage and navigation have been modified,
replanned and withdrawn;
(2) Highways and bridges have been modified, re-
designed and withdrawn;
(3) Dredge and fill permits have been withheld; and
(4)
GEORGIA :
Electrical powerlines have been re-routed.
A. The state's information base is improved and the planners
input is on a broader base.
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3-.
 MISSISSIPPI:
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
A. "Completely. Tennessee--Tombigbee Waterway, Highway
corridors, offshore oil leases and superport licensing. These
.are only a few of the EIS's that have been used extensively in
the decision-making process of the State."
MISSOURI:
A-.". "There is no evidence of EIS's providing any great service to
Wnf(state) agency in making decisions. They do assist a state
agency that is affected by the project as to the public's
reaction. It also gives appropriate agencies the opportunity
to address the issue of environment on major federally sponsored
activities in the state."
NEBRASKA :
A? .-"EIS's are used (by the state) primarily as an advance form
of project identification and description. They have served as
a means to determine in detail how the project relates to existing
and proposed plans and programs. They also have become a means
to determine citizen reaction to projects."
NEW JERSEY (Department of Transportation):
"EIS's prepared subsequent to 1973 have been an integral
part of the decision-making process in the selection of a
preferred alternate for a highway.
N.J. Route 15 - The EIS identified potential impacts on water
quality of streams on one alignment, plus
impacts on businesses. Identification of
these impacts resulted in the decision to
choose another alignment.
N.J. Route 55 Freeway - The EIS process resulted in the iden-
fication of three feasible alignments which
were presented to the. public. Selection of the
preferred alignment was based on public reacti:
NORTH CAROLINA (Department of Natural and Economic Resources):
"DNER uses federal EIS's extensively in arriving at
decisions regarding departmental positions relative to a parti-
cular project. For instance DNER staff considers material pre-
sented in EIS's related to water resource development prior to
making staff recommendations to the Environmental Management
Commission regarding state approval or disapproval of federal
water resource{-activities such as the public works programs
conducted by the Corps-of Engineers and the Soil Conservation
Service. Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 In ma nppl*a Earl leazor QMtld3tyC P O2?R6 o g q :e this
agency's only opportunity to inject its concerns into the federal
decision-making process-. Examples of such situations are develop-
ment of nuclear power facilities and airport and highway develop-
ment."
NORTH DAKOTA :
A. Some of the data which appears in the EIS can be used
in planning for the projects impact.
OHIO (Department of Transportation):
A. "ODOT uses the EIS process as a primary decision making
document-when conflicts with other State or Federal agencies exist."
A. In areas of mutual concern, most state agencies do in-
corporate applicable federal EIS's to a limited extent in
planning decisions.
SOUTH CAROLINA:.
A. The EIS is normally used as a reference in determining
the action to be taken by the State on a project. The
EIS is the only place where comprehensive information, or
lack of information can be found. An example of the use of
an. EIS is the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake Project of
the Corps of, Engineers. The EIS alerted the State to the
project. and the need for more analysis.
A. The South Dakota Department of Environmental Protection
(SDDEP) review areas which may contribute to degradation of
air, water and land resources and makes decisions relative
to existing state laws. An example would be a review of an
irrigation project. We would attempt to determine through
data presented in the EIS of return flows would affect the
water quality of rivers and streams in the irrigation district
and downstream from the area.
TENNESSEE:
A. Many policy decisions are based upon federal EIS's.
For example, Tellico Dam project was brought to the Governor's
attention r~~dRleb~s 2(Y30ax~CIP~7~@tl~@~66r~i0~~~8gp~~3
processed through our review system.
 5
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
UTAH :
A. State decisionmakers do make a gcod faith effort to use
the information provided by environmental impact statements
in coordinating federal-state projects and federally funded
state projects. An example is the 1-215 Belt Route in Salt
Lake City, Transportation commissioners will use the environ-
mental impact statement to aid in the selection of alternatives
available.
VERMONT:
A. Rarely. The occasion of a statement may promote more
investigation of a project or better interagency coordination,
but the statement is so rarely on a project that involves a
decision by a state agency that it is difficult to answer
the question.
WISCONSIN:
A. "NEPA and WEPA have encouraged the development of
multi-disciplinary, more environmentally sound governmental
and private sector decision-making. The EIS procedure is
a useful public and interagency disclosure device. It is
difficult to estimate whether the benefits derived directly
and indirectly from environmental policy legislation are in
balance with the considerable governmental and private
costs and time delays which result from EIS preparation."
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/1A/i3?EDg78M02660R000800080019-3
State Responses to CEQ NEPA Questionnaire Regarding the
Benefits and Costs of NEPA and the EIS Process Generally,
Question 4.01
Q: Overall Comments and Suggestions on Ways to Improve
EIS Process
401. Please comment on:
(d) The benefits and costs of NEPA and the EIS proces
generally.
ALASKA : "The Department of Law stated: We do not think.
there is, any doubt that the NEPA. process has made
great strides in making federal and state agencies,
and the public, aware of the envi ronrntal trade-
offs of development. As an educational process,
NEPA receives high grades. The place that NEPA
falls down is in failing- to come to grips with
the critical issues surrounding any project."
ARKANSAS: "NEPA and the EIS process is serving a good purpose
in spite of the inherent weaknesses and the high
costs; of preparing and reviewing EISs."
CONNECTICUT: "We suspect that NEPA has resulted in a
.tremendous burden in expense,and paperwork and, as
mentioned previously, increased cynicism with
relatively few examples of effective integration
of environmental consideration in decisionmaking.
At times, "political realities" can prevent full
participation in the EIS process. There is no
mechanism to prevent this (since these mechanisms
themselves are subject to the political process).
In some cases, lack of expertise prevents full
participation in EIS review (e.g., nuclear power
facilities). Obviously, the more significant and
long-range the impacts, the more likely one or
the other. of these two obstacles will be encountered."
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 DELAW prbv4Po 1e0a Sr2BJ4/1 ~X-~A-W:Y$ Rffib 0NM00'8D0Th- 'se fuL
and should be continued. However these is an
urgent need for cutting down the bulk and an
assessment as to whether 'the end justifies
the means':"
FLORIDA: "Benefits:
(1) Increased environmental protection and
planning.
(2) Enhanced State decisionmak ing.
(3) Enhanced, State, Federal and intra-state
cooperation.
(4) Enhanced public involvement in federal
activities.
(5) Increased general information.
(6) Enhanced project and federal activities
monitoring ability..
Cost: All costs to the State can be expressed Lin-
monetary terms, i.e. personnel and administz7a tive
and travel costs."
GEORGIA: "NEPA and the EIS process has promoted inter-
governmental dialogue and cooperation especially
at the State level; improved the State policy role;
and increased the State's information and knowledge
base. However, the costs of the EIS process are
the pulling together of staff time, which is programmed
for other activities, and displeasure with the lack
of Federal reaction to comments prepared for environ-
mental impact statements.
Generally, there have been substantial benefits
resulting from the EIS process.. In particular,
these benefits have accrued to the general
citizenry by making data more readily accessible
The EIS process, then, has promoted 'citizen
participation' in the governmental process. The
cost of the EIS preparation is justified since the
information and analysis presented through the
process is normally quite pertinent, if not essential,
to accurately evaluating proposed projects. This
interagency communication has also been stimulated
between the three vertical levels of government
(Federal, State and Local) as well as horizontally
Within a given level. This is particularly true
where projects conflict with the goals and programs
of inaa vidt~a aqe c'es
Approved For Release 2004/1 T/36: ~IAVDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 3
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
MAINE: "There is no doubt that the NEPA requirements
have halted or altered some projects which if
allowed to be constructed as originally proposed
would have caused long-tern adverse affects.
It is also evident that NEPA requirements are
costly. It is obvious that much effort must be
expended to make sure that EIS's are not required
when they are not necessary. One example of an
unnecessary EIS is when the final outcome is
almost 100% predictable.
.MISSISSIPPI: "Costs appear to be in excess of benefits
under the present procedures.
MISSOURI: "The key benefit of NEPA is. that the intent of-t;,
e
at to require environmental thinking is being
served. Cost, other than. financial, requires
changing priorities for the use of personnel."NEBRASKA: "The only negative aspects might be that certain
types of programs such as road. building and airports
are still required. to justify their actions through
the EIS process in greater detail than other types
of programs such as parks and hospitals. Although,
the second type have just as significant effect on
present and: existing environments."
NORTH CAROLINA: "It is Dept...of Natural and Economic Resources'
opinion that the benefits of NEPA far outweigh its
present costs. It provides an additional planning
tool for federal and state agencies and functions
as an effective public disclosure document- We
fully support the NEPA and EIS process."
NORTH DAKOTA: "It is a time consuming job, but so far the
only. way projects can be reviewed or commented on
or input added by state agencies. Benefits, the
public is more informed of federally funded projects
and their environmental impact. Cost, estimated
cost for soil Conservation Committee. The determinatlo.
to fund a federal project for which an EIS is required
has been, for all intents., and purposes, before the
draft EIS is released. the only benefits of
commenting is the frail hope that the project
will be carried out in such a way so as to not
cause too much damage. Some question as to degree
Apprd31 d FBOLIdemsw20,Dd gi,tl IAuRDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 4
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
OREGON: "In-general, state agencies assess benefits to have
exceeded costs in the EIS process. Greater
understanding between state and federal agencies
has been achieved, and planning errors avoided.
The EIS process has made federal agencies more respon-
sive to environmental impacts of proposals. it
opens the door to prevention of environmental
degradation, rather than after-the-fact remedies.
The EIS process allows greater public participation
in the federal planning process. it generates info=at,
and increases accountability to other agencies. By
identifying effects and conflicts in the planning
stage, environmental, public and private costs can be
anticipated and reduced.
The most severe problem is length of time required for
preparation, comment, processing and approval- There
has been unnecessary federal involvement in matters
which could have been left to state-and local dis-
cretion. Costs of the process and the inevitable
delays are sizeable. Efforts should continue to
streamline, clarify, and reduce costs in relation
to benefits."
SOUTH CAROLINA: "chile the costs of NEPA are great, the
benefits are greater and needed in order-to provide
for the necessary protection of the envim anent.
NEPA has provided for the involvement of all
agencies and concerns in the decisior-making process.
The review of EIS's gives state agencies an oppor-
tunity to perform their responsibilities as ..
designated by law, but the timing and need for
review often determine the quality of this review.
Efforts must be made to emphasize the NEPA process as
a planning mechanism for early decisionmaking input
rather than documenting the environmental consequences
of an action. One of the greatest benefits of NEPA
and the EIS process has been the increased awareness
and accountability of an applicants'/Federal agency's
decisionmaking responsibility."
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
SOUTE DAKOTA: "A State with relatively small resources cannot
adequatelyJexamine the reliability or adequacy
of an EIS prepared by a large and determined
Federal agency on a large and complex project
which.creates a. potential basis for State-Federal
conflict."
TENNESSEE: "The positive aspect of the NEPA-EIS program-
has been to acquaint public agencies with-projects
who otherwise would have had little or no opportunity
to become aware of such projects. The procedure
also provides a great deal of information to the
several agencies.. The difficulties with the
program are: (1) It was enacted into law and. placed
great review burdens upon the existing staffs of
the several review agencies yet provided no funding:
for the suppLementaL staff needed if: the reviews
are to be conducted adequately and within theetime
schediles allowed. (2) Since there is no means
within the .YEP Act~for- environmentally damaging
projects to be terminated, there has developed
within the review staff' the feeling that their time
is: often wasted. with reviews, since the final
determimtion of the project would more than
likely be made through the political, judicial,. and
fiscal processes of government, rather than the
environmental review process."
UTAH: "Benefits from NEPA include the possibility of
better selection of alternatives and costs include
time delays and moneys expended in the process."
VERMONT: "When done properly and on time, the process is
invaluable. When done as justification for decisions
already made rather than as solicitation for input
and improvement, the process is time-consuming
and expensive. We here in Vermont are committed
to environmental assessment not only as a means
of preserving important resources but also as a
means of ensuring that investments of public and
private capital can be made as efficiently as possible.
NEPA and'the way of doing business that it represents
have contributed a valuable model for public decision-
Approved Fd1taWeiooe g8 .1 3bl CJA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
WASHINGTON: "General Benefits The EIS process provides for
the following:
(a) Identifies significant social,. economic and
environmental impacts of proposed projects.
(b) Provides opportunity for a thorough analysis
and evaluation of alternative courses of action
(or non action) within the framework of Federal
and. State law.
(c) overall, is beneficial to sound environmental
management.
"General Costs -- ~TEPA and the EIS process add
significantly to the cost of proposed projects an
increase the lead time prior to initiating or
implementing a proposed action. State agency parti-
cipation in EIS preparation and review places
additional burdens on existing staff and may create
a need. for specialized positions which. are not readily
adaptable to the overall responsibilities of the-agency.
WISCONSIN: "NEPA and WEPA. have encouraged the develcp--menf of
multi-disciplinary, more environmentally sound
governmental and private sector decisionmaking.
The EIS procedure is a-useful public and interagency
disclosure device. it is difficult to estimate
whether the benefits derived directly and indirectly
from environmental policy legislation are in balance
with the considerable governmental and private costs
and time delays which result from EIS preparation.
"
WYOMfl G: "Although there was nearly unanimous agreement that the
general EIS process is beneficial at least one agency
did. find that it had been consuming an excessive
amount of time, money and personnel. There were some
feelings that too many EIS's were beind done, prticula rl-
in the transportation field. The view was that EIS's
were being required by some federal agencies for
projects that were quite insignificant. There is a
need for, uniformity in EIS procedures among federal
agencies, which might be achieved by better coordination
,or standardization of guidelines."
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3
 Q 204 ,q`-pp7'$veFlyFo~W~f as& /14 :' RDPIS$NI( E66AfiWfl&@WB0f01Me3deral
EIS's? Please specify whether actual or estimated
and in terms of: (a) cost in dollars, (b) number
of staff required, (c) staff-hours expended.
_ ..-_ .~_ .
- - States able---._ -.---
Staff Hour:
'
to estimate Cost in SS
No. of staff
Expend
d
-
__
ALASKA $ 1,000,000
DELAWARE
10 full-time
18,000 man
EIS Review Committee
2,000
Cost of EIS Review &
Comment
10,000
State *Ping. Office
1,000
100 man `
.DNREC (Nat. Res.. & Env.
0..7 man yea:
Control
10,000
23,,000
168,000
39
18,856 man
GEORGIA
Off. of Ping & Budget
2,000 (per 4
200 man
EIS)
Dept. of Nat. Res.
4,000
10
800 "
Dept. of Community Dev.
7,000
6
900 Is
IOWA
Dept. of Env. Quality
20,000
44 staff wee
Conservation Comm' n
can't quantify
Energy Policy Council
7,500
1/2
1/2 man year
State Clearinghouse
3,000
to
5,000
MISSOURI
Highway Department
7,500
6
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Staff Hours
Approved For Release 2004/I1S/30 : CIA-RQPP78M026ptR0?Q800080019E~enued
Cost in No. or
NORTH DAKOTA
Forest Service
Park Service
Soyl Conservation Comm'n
St. Planning Div.
60,000
900
380
7,500
5
10,500 "
104
50
2,000
NEW JERSEY
Non-Highway Projects S
8,000
1400 man !=
70,000
2.5
8000
OHIO
Dept. of Transp.
5,000
560
OREGON
Soil & water Conserv.
4
1500 "
Comm' n
Land Conserv. & Dev.
7,125
10-12
456
Aeronautics Div.
2,500
4
106
Intergov'tal Rel. Div.
6,443
3
501
SOUTH CAROLINA
133,300
12,400
Dept. of Archives &
History alone
8,300
4
1,400
TENNESSEE
Dept. of Conservation
6,000
300
Dept. of Transportation
7,200
180
Public Health (FY 75)
35,000
to
40,000
27 man months
Wildlife Resources Agy
19,500
14.5 man month
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78MO266OR000800080019-3
 Hours
Staff
Approved For R~Sj 2PR4/jx/30 : CIA-R6~Po7 M99 66 t?,90 X800080
.-pe
riled
019-
UTAH
250,000
20
VERMONT
600
6
96 man hrs
WASHINGTON
79,320
29
- 8,883 man hrs
'WI SCONS IN
Dept. Nat.. Resources
20,000
3
2 man yrs
Dept. of Transp.
600
8
76 man h.
St. Historical Sac.
4,900
4
700 man- h=-=
Public Service Ccmm' n
Soil & Water Conser i. _.._ S1, 500
6
15 man days
Uni7ersity of Wisconsin
3,000 to
9
-
5,000
-St.. Planning Office
-
3
400,000
140
50,000 man hr
Approved For Release 2004/11/30 : CIA-RDP78M02660R000800080019-3